Sixiang
13th September 2010, 02:43
Hello revleft. I got into a bit of a debate with my Government teacher on Friday about Social Darwinism. Would anyone be willing to read an argument I have prepared and offer advice, critique, editing, etc. on it? I would greatly appreciate it. I wasn't sure where to put this thread, so go easy on me for my noobishness.
On the subject of Social Darwinism, I have, potentially, a lot to say. First, we must define Social Darwinism, as it can mean many different things. If one is talking about the idea that human beings that are biologically or naturally better equipped to survive will excel in society and that those that are not as equipped will die out, then I must say I disagree with that. That idea is completely leaving out the many different societal possibilities that can affect ones development. That idea simply asserts that this is natural. One must take into account the fact that where one is born, when one is born, into what family one is born, into what religious beliefs on is born, into what sort of political society one is born, into what sort of nation one is born, and many other social variables are extremely influential on how well one excels in society. You cant just assume that someone who is rich is so because they are naturally equipped to be rich. Bill Gates children may be worth a lot of money. But thats only because they are the children of Bill Gates, who is a billionaire. Its not because they went though some uphill battle to get to their economic status. Not everyone starts with this economic clean slate. Its not some natural or biological occurrence. Well, unless you are talking about the fact that they are the biological offspring of Bill Gates, then yes it is biological. There are so many variables that come into play in determining ones success in life.
As far as the idea of applying Social Darwinism to a free-market system, I have some thoughts as well. You could apply what I previously said to the business world. Social Darwinism in regards to capitalism assumes that businesses have this fair start: a clean slate if you will. This is ludicrous in my opinion. If one was to start a department store tomorrow with the hopes of overcoming Wal-Mart, then I would have to warn them that they may want to rethink their business ventures. One must take into account the fact that other businesses already exist. Wal-Mart already dominates the department store industry. Just because some little mom and pop shop has a catchy name, slogan, and advertising campaign doesnt mean that they can defeat the giant that is Wal-Mart. Social Darwinism implies that these businesses start off with no other social variables; that they are basically neutral to the rest of history, geography, and the current status of their environment. It is ridiculous to think that businesses all have a fair shot at succeeding. Looking at society in snap shots can be disastrous. One must take into account the many different social variables that precede a business birth. It is not fair, as some Social Darwinists may declare. Nor is Social Darwinism a justification for the dying out of less equipped entities.
If you want to apply Social Darwinism to the current existence of certain peoples, then I must assert to you that many people exist today because of welfare. You cant just assume that humanity is some one against all battle to reach the top. Many of the early, primitive hunter-gatherer tribes of humanitys past still allowed those less equipped to survive. The mentally ill or physically disabled werent just left to die, the rest of the tribe helped them out. If someone falls down as a result of starvation and malnutrition, do you just leave them to die? Or do you extend your hand and help them up? True, some ancient societies did leave those that were less equipped behind. Ancient Sparta killed any infants that showed any imperfections, in the hopes of creating a perfect race. This is called Eugenics, and was a backbone to the ideology of Nazi Germany, which also wanted to create a perfect society, composed of perfect people. Another important thing I must mention in regards to that is the existence of Stephen Hawking. If he were born in ancient Sparta, he would have been thrown into the chasm for being considered "puny and deformed." Yet, how much has he contributed to the scientific world? Also, if everyone who is unequipped to survive the rat race dies off, then those things that are considered physical or mental abnormalities would no longer exist. Those people that should have just died off obviously did continue to live and breed because their descendants have those same problems today and do exist. If people who are weak are supposed to die off, then there wouldnt be anymore weak people after all this time, however, there are weak people in current society.
One more thing that should be mentioned, those that are in high statuses in society could not have reached their positions if it wasnt for the less equipped people helping them to reach their position. Sam Walton would never have become as rich and successful as he did if it wasnt for all of the people that would be considered less equipped by Social Darwinists working for him and buying his products. He could not have reached his position without preying on the efforts of those below him.
On the subject of Social Darwinism, I have, potentially, a lot to say. First, we must define Social Darwinism, as it can mean many different things. If one is talking about the idea that human beings that are biologically or naturally better equipped to survive will excel in society and that those that are not as equipped will die out, then I must say I disagree with that. That idea is completely leaving out the many different societal possibilities that can affect ones development. That idea simply asserts that this is natural. One must take into account the fact that where one is born, when one is born, into what family one is born, into what religious beliefs on is born, into what sort of political society one is born, into what sort of nation one is born, and many other social variables are extremely influential on how well one excels in society. You cant just assume that someone who is rich is so because they are naturally equipped to be rich. Bill Gates children may be worth a lot of money. But thats only because they are the children of Bill Gates, who is a billionaire. Its not because they went though some uphill battle to get to their economic status. Not everyone starts with this economic clean slate. Its not some natural or biological occurrence. Well, unless you are talking about the fact that they are the biological offspring of Bill Gates, then yes it is biological. There are so many variables that come into play in determining ones success in life.
As far as the idea of applying Social Darwinism to a free-market system, I have some thoughts as well. You could apply what I previously said to the business world. Social Darwinism in regards to capitalism assumes that businesses have this fair start: a clean slate if you will. This is ludicrous in my opinion. If one was to start a department store tomorrow with the hopes of overcoming Wal-Mart, then I would have to warn them that they may want to rethink their business ventures. One must take into account the fact that other businesses already exist. Wal-Mart already dominates the department store industry. Just because some little mom and pop shop has a catchy name, slogan, and advertising campaign doesnt mean that they can defeat the giant that is Wal-Mart. Social Darwinism implies that these businesses start off with no other social variables; that they are basically neutral to the rest of history, geography, and the current status of their environment. It is ridiculous to think that businesses all have a fair shot at succeeding. Looking at society in snap shots can be disastrous. One must take into account the many different social variables that precede a business birth. It is not fair, as some Social Darwinists may declare. Nor is Social Darwinism a justification for the dying out of less equipped entities.
If you want to apply Social Darwinism to the current existence of certain peoples, then I must assert to you that many people exist today because of welfare. You cant just assume that humanity is some one against all battle to reach the top. Many of the early, primitive hunter-gatherer tribes of humanitys past still allowed those less equipped to survive. The mentally ill or physically disabled werent just left to die, the rest of the tribe helped them out. If someone falls down as a result of starvation and malnutrition, do you just leave them to die? Or do you extend your hand and help them up? True, some ancient societies did leave those that were less equipped behind. Ancient Sparta killed any infants that showed any imperfections, in the hopes of creating a perfect race. This is called Eugenics, and was a backbone to the ideology of Nazi Germany, which also wanted to create a perfect society, composed of perfect people. Another important thing I must mention in regards to that is the existence of Stephen Hawking. If he were born in ancient Sparta, he would have been thrown into the chasm for being considered "puny and deformed." Yet, how much has he contributed to the scientific world? Also, if everyone who is unequipped to survive the rat race dies off, then those things that are considered physical or mental abnormalities would no longer exist. Those people that should have just died off obviously did continue to live and breed because their descendants have those same problems today and do exist. If people who are weak are supposed to die off, then there wouldnt be anymore weak people after all this time, however, there are weak people in current society.
One more thing that should be mentioned, those that are in high statuses in society could not have reached their positions if it wasnt for the less equipped people helping them to reach their position. Sam Walton would never have become as rich and successful as he did if it wasnt for all of the people that would be considered less equipped by Social Darwinists working for him and buying his products. He could not have reached his position without preying on the efforts of those below him.