Social Classes Owe To Each Other Analysis

Social Darwinism is a term to describe the idea that humans compete for existence just like the rest of the animal kingdom. Darwin used this term to attempt to rationalize racism, capitalism, and imperialism. It simplifies the human’s desire for power. Now it is widely discredited and scrutinized because its a “ rejection of compassion and social responsibility.” (1)

Social Darwinism is based on Charles Darwins thoery of natural evalution. They based a persons fitness off of weath, social status, and property. Poor poeple were seen as lazy, and less fit to survive. They decided that anyone could have a good work ethic, intelligence, and perserverance. Supported the idea of goverment policies should not regulate the market place or atempt social reform. Social Darwinism was also used by Andrew Caenagie and other Industrialists to support thier business practices.

Social Darwinism began in the late 19th century and early 20th century during the time of The Gilded Age and earlier. Herbert Spencer was a 19th century philosopher and he promoted the idea of Social Darwinism. It basically followed the principle that only the strong would survive and prosper. While this period the technology and economy and government of the

Penned and published in 1883 during an era of widespread economic uncertainty in America, William Graham Sumner's What the Social Classes Owe Each Other stands as the seminal treatise on the purely democratic concepts of societal obligation and shared responsibility. Sumner's infamous assertions regarding the relative status of individual people, which essentially argued that human nature inevitably produces both poverty stricken and privileged classes, forcefully challenged the socially acceptable orthodoxy of compulsory altruism in an age when charity was lauded as the most virtuous of public acts. While Sumner argued eloquently that "a man who is present as a consumer, yet who does not contribute either by land, labor, or capital to the work of society, is a burden" (1952), his philosophical views were challenged by several contemporaries, including muckraking investigative reporter Nell Cusack and socialist paragon Eugene V. Debs. Both Cusack and Debs forcefully fought to protect and preserve the rights of those who occupy society's fringes, while Sumner chose to champion the advantageous positions held by the most affluent and ambitious among us. By conducting a thorough and thoughtful comparison of Sumner's statements and the work of his rhetorical opponents, modern readers are provided with the opportunity to assess such controversial and conflicted stances in the sublime light provided by historical hindsight.

Is it true that social class in the United States is still a major problem? Some individuals would like to believe that we are a nation that no longer has social classes, and that everyone is much better off than they were many years ago. William Sumner and Jane Addams were two talented writers, who had different outlooks on social class. William Graham Sumner wrote “What Social Classes Owe to Each Other” in 1883. Sumner essential question that he asking is, “What do social classes owe to each other?” he is ultimately saying that they owe each other nothing. In the book he asks vital important questions, which makes you ponder. Sumner was a sociologist at Yale University and a great individual of classical laissez-faire. In this book Sumner is tackling the attempt to adjust economy and improve social problems. On the other hand, Jane Addams is known as a peace activist. She published “Democracy and Social Ethics” in 1902. This book indicates the issues that delay the capability of all individuals of society to establish their own comfort. Addams came from a privileged family and dedicated her life to other women. She advocated for women’s rights, and labor rights, and she was among the first generation of college-educated women in the United States. This essay will analyze the important aspects of comparing and contrasting social inequality, poverty, and education.

The Gilded Age had many relevant people arguing about economy at that time. Three of the people that argued about economic issues in society are Sumner, Lloyd, and Carnegie. Sumner had a biased approached towards economy in favor of the powerful wealthy class. While Lloyd had a completely contradictory view from Sumner’s opposing most of Sumner’s ideas. On the other hand, Carnegie had a favorable argument for economic equality by offering help to the poor class in his way. Although these authors have opposing views on the economic inequality, they support their views with valid solutions and proposals.

Throughout the Gilded Age, Social Darwinism gained attention as a justification for the huge class gap in American society. They argued that the most capable and strongest being on top was needed for economic growth and progression. They vocalized that trying to change the wage system or revolt against the capitol would kill the economy and make them lose the progress they had imagined. Others still argued with these people, showing that there was no reason the the inequality and injustices the working class faced. William Graham Sumner, a man who believed in social Darwinism, argued that if you took away from the people who did well and gave it to the people who did not exceed in life, that it would be unacceptable and horrible.

George believes that land prices should be so high, that people would not be able to own land but would rather rent the land. His theory explains that progress is only good to those who can achieve it due to inequality. Those who don’t have a chance will remain in poverty and poverty will continue to become worse. This contrasts Sumner’s idea of survival of the fittest. By giving to those who will not seek the opportunity to improve themselves, society will not

Darwinism opened the door to Social Darwinism which was utilized to classify to people. Social Darwinism was a justification for superior behaviors over people being considered poor and incapable of succeeding due to their social class or race. This is where the survival of the fittest came into place. Classifying people based on how successful they were. The more wealthy a person was the

Social Darwinism is based off of Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. He uses the concept of survival of the fittest. This was used to justify class distinctions and to explain the reason for poverty. Modern science declared that the failure to advance in society was due to the lack of self reliance and determination. They acted down on people who needed government aid. Even during the depression people still believed the notion that the poor were responsible for their fate. The idea of natural superiority was around since the Civil War. So much so, we thought it was okay to own human beings.

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:

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

William Graham Sumner is a social Darwinist who claimed that people who work hard are rich, while people who do not work as hard are poor. In his article of “What the Social Classes Owe Each Other,” he discusses the distinction between the lower and upper class. The upper class consists of all the determined hard workers, while the lower class consists of lazy workers. He believed that every man is given a chance to work for their success, but not everyone is able to grasp their opportunity and most end up in the lower class. In this sense, we should not help the poor. If the rich were to help the poor, it would discourage them from working harder and therefore they would not be working to their full potential. The poor would also become

Social Darwinism stems from a misapplication of Darwin 's theory of evolution. In 1859 Charles Darwin published On The Origin of Species, which describes the mechanism for changes in the traits of a population over time. This mechanism, called natural selection, favors the survival, and hence the reproduction, of those

Social Darwinism is a theory that competition among all individuals, groups, nations or ideas drives social evolution in human societies. The term draws upon Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, where competition between individual organisms drives biological evolutionary change through the survival of the fittest. The term was popularized in 1944 by the American historian Richard Hofstadter, and has generally been used by critics rather than advocates of what the term is supposed to