Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection and Social Darwinism Essay

Social Darwinism was a slight distortion of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, which stated that species change over time because those with heritable traits that help survival are the one’s that reproduce. “Social Darwinists,” like Sumner, applied Darwin’s theory onto the human race, and then used it to justify his views in his article. He claimed that those in society who are powerful are innately better than those who are not, and their superiority is proof of this (Class notes

In comparison, capitalism and communism are like night and day--opposite of each other in every way, but the main differences in the two can be seen in the distribution of wealth among a society’s peoples and the appearance

Social Darwinism is a theory that individuals, peoples, and groups are subject to darwinian laws of natural selection. Another way to describe social darwinism is survival of the fittest. The strongest and the smartest will survive. It is now largely discredited, it was advocated in the late 19th and early 20th century by Herbert Spencer and others. It was used to justify political conservation, imperialism, to discourage intervention and reform and racism. This theory was used to support the laissez faire capitalism and political conservatism.

These tycoons of business figured out how to use social darwinism to their benefit. They

Social Darwinism is a quasi-philosophical, quasi-religious, quasi-sociological view that came from the mind of Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher in the 19th century. It did not achieve wide acceptance in England or Europe, but flourished in this country, as is true of many ideologies, religions, and philosophies. A good summary of Social Darwinism is by Johnson:

These people wanted an economic market that was free from outside regulation. They contended that the system itself, like nature, had inherent systems of checks and balances. Because the stronger and more cunning fox survives, he passes on his positive traits and furthers the entire species genetically. Similarly, the stronger and more successful businessman weeds out his unskilled competitors. This allows the entire system to progress and provides positive examples for future generations to follow. This justification through “scientific law” promoted acceptance because science was held in high regard at the time. When lectures, publications, and even private conversations tackled the controversial issue of business regulation, people cited the principles of Social Darwinism time and time again. By providing firm scientific principles that could be used as evidence on popular issues, Social Darwinism consumed discussions and spread wildly.

The concept of Social Darwinism was a widely accepted theory in the nineteenth-century. Various intellectual, and political figures from each side of the political spectrum grasped the theory and interpreted it in various ways. In this paper, we will discuss three different nineteenth-century thinkers and their conception of Social Darwinism. The conservative, Heinrich von Treitschke, and liberal Herbert Spencer both gave arguments on the usefulness of competition between people on a global scale. The anarchist, Peter Kropotkin, refuted the belief of constant competition among members of the same species and emphasized mutual aid.

Social Darwinism is an idea popularized during the Gilded Age which was based on Darwinism, and to understand Social Darwinism, we must first understand Darwinism. In short, Darwinism is

Social Darwinism is a set of ideologies introduced by Herbert Spencer in the nineteenth century. These principles were used by imperialists as a means of justification and proof of their right to colonize land overseas. Social Darwinism is an immoral evil that cannot be ethically justified. To further understand the immorality behind using Social Darwinism and the even greater immorality behind using it as an excuse for overseas expansion, we must understand the origins and foundations of which Social Darwinism is based. It all began with an English man named Charles Darwin and his newly introduced perspective on the evolution of life.

10, 2013). Thus, the view of people in need of assistance began to be seen as a burden and “against the laws of economic nature” (Day & Schiele, p. 10, 2013). The Darwinism theory still infiltrates the social welfare system in the US today.

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution centres on the idea that species compete to survive, and favorable characteristics are passed on from one generation to the next. Darwin said that evolution took place by a process of natural selection or survival of the fittest. This meant that the animals and plants best suited to their surroundings survived and were able to pass on their genes to their offspring. The ones that weren't best suited died off and didn't get the chance to reproduce.

Charles Darwin is one of the most well known names in the United States for good reason. His theory of evolution through natural selection was not only revolutionary in the scientific world, but were also applied to society by some of his followers in this country. Some of these applications were beneficial to society while others simply allowed people to use his teachings for their own goals. While not apparent at first, Darwin does believe in a meaning in life similar to Tolstoy, and does not have the same pessimism as Freud. However, Darwin’s followers in America do not share the same view, and use his findings to establish Social Darwinism in their country. This backdrop allows for many racist norms in the name of science, and allows for the occurrence of cases like that of Henrietta Lacks.

Furthermore, the denizens of society are tied to the rules of Social Darwinism, as they are subject to the same fashion of natural selection as animals in the wild. Instances demonstrating Social Darwinism, the notion that humans are subject to the same fashion of natural selection as animals in the wild while living in society

As an elegant flock of birds traverses the virtually immeasurable sky, one may take note of several discrepancies in behavior and physical structure. If one were to theoretically travel several millennia forward in time, then he or she would be quite baffled to discover that this species has been completely altered. This outcome is a direct result of a ubiquitous phenomenon theorized by none other than Charles Darwin, a prestigious naturalist and biologist. This venerable man was able to unveil many revelations regarding variability through the development of his theory of natural selection (Darwin and Huxley xii). Having an inherent adoration toward nature as a young child likely provided a significant incentive. Though Darwin’s thesis is not immaculate by any standards he lived a successful life beyond this critical discovery and his legacy exists within his descendants (xii). In spite of being subject to perennial criticism it is essential to scrutinize not only the impact created by Darwin but his life in its complete grandeur.

As Darwin’s works became more popular, the message caught on and more and more people used logic that Darwin employed in explaining competition, natural selection, and evolution in other disciplines. Soon, the same pages were being used by feminists, anti-feminists, religious sects, atheists and more to explain contradictory ideologies. Due to the great range of ideologies that reference Origin and Descent, historians strive to try to determine how one work could produce so many different ideas about “evolution and society,” as well as try to figure out where Darwin may have stood on some of the social questions that Origin and Descent raised. This essay will look at two historians, Evelyn Richards and John Greene, to determine some of the methods that they used to understand Darwin, evolution, and the society surrounding the