Social Darwinism

[ragarth]

This is a concept I do believe I've misunderstood. I'm currently reading the text 'The Basics of Western Philosophy' by Eugene Kelly, and on page 59 of chapter 3 it gives a brief definition of Social Darwinism while taking about Herbert Spencer. The definition given is:

teaches that the state should not interfere with the evolution of the economic system, even to relieve the distress of unfortunates who are unable to compete effectively within it. Such efforts (at welfare-statism, for example) are either useless or harmful, for evolution is a law of nature, and serves the health and viability of a species by weeding out the unfit.
​

Given this definition, I can't rightly see marxism or socialism practicing social darwinism since neither system leaves the economy alone. This also means Hitler was not a social darwinist since he didn't leave the people to their own means either. Indeed, the most immediate group that comes to mind reading this definition are the GOP here in the USA.

So, would the republican GOP in the USA be considered advocates of social darwinism? As I see it right now, yes, because they promote a more laisez-faire capitalism and less government assistance and welfare systems.

//Also, does this belong here? Since social darwinism is a philosophical concept I figured yes, but if not I can move it to the politics forum.

 

[Eudaimonist]

*sigh*

There are no advocates of social darwinism any more, except of course for the occasional crank.

Also, advocates of laissez-faire capitalism are not social darwinists!!!

To be a social darwinist requires that one views one's social system as a means of promoting the evolution of the human species through seeing that some "unfit" members die before they can reproduce. And indeed one can in theory advocate socialism or communism and be a social darwinist if one says that the government is entitled to refuse social benefits to "unfit" persons.

Laissez-faire capitalists generally believe that their favored economic system will do a better job producing prosperity and abundance than any other proposed economic system, at least in the long run. They see capitalism as profoundly pro-human survival, and other systems as flirting with death and poverty.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ragarth]

*sigh*

There are no advocates of social darwinism any more, except of course for the occasional crank.

Also, advocates of laissez-faire capitalism are not social darwinists!!!

To be a social darwinist requires that one views one's social system as a means of promoting the evolution of the human species through seeing that some "unfit" members die before they can reproduce. And indeed one can in theory advocate socialism or communism and be a social darwinist if one says that the government is entitled to refuse social benefits to "unfit" persons.

Laissez-faire capitalists generally believe that their favored economic system will do a better job producing prosperity and abundance than any other proposed economic system, at least in the long run. They see capitalism as profoundly pro-human survival, and other systems as flirting with death and poverty.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The social darwinism definition in this text book specifically defines it in terms of non-interference with the economy.

teaches that the state should not interfere with the evolution of the economic system
​

If this definition is wrong, please point me towards a trustworthy source for a proper definition. To give an example, in my opinion my text book is more trustworthy than wikipedia, but not necesserily as trustworthy as two .edu websites.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The social darwinism definition in this text book specifically defines it in terms of non-interference with the economy.

What a horrible textbook!

If you won't accept Wikipedia, then it's not easy for me to offer references. All I can tell you is that any "-ism" must be defined in terms of what adherents actually believe, instead of what non-adherents conclude about the likely results of that "-ism".

You are posting in the Philosophy board. I ask you simply to ponder what I have said. Doesn't it stand to reason that I'm right about this?

I'll give just one more example to emphasize my point. It is alleged that millions of people have starved to death in Communist nations. Does that make those Communists social darwinists? If the revolutions were not fought with the intent of seeing those people starve, is it right to call the revolutionaries social darwinists?

And consider that laissez-faire capitalists generally advocate private safety nets, such as family, fraternal organizations, and charitable organizations, and of course personal prudence and insurance.

Just use your own brain about this. Don't worry about what your textbook says.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ragarth]

What a horrible textbook!

If you won't accept Wikipedia, then it's not easy for me to offer references. All I can tell you is that any "-ism" must be defined in terms of what adherents actually believe, instead of what non-adherents conclude about the likely results of that "-ism".

You are posting in the Philosophy board. I ask you simply to ponder what I have said. Doesn't it stand to reason that I'm right about this?

I'll give just one more example to emphasize my point. It is alleged that millions of people have starved to death in Communist nations. Does that make those Communists social darwinists? If the revolutions were not fought with the intent of seeing those people starve, is it right to call the revolutionaries social darwinists?

Just use your own brain about this. Don't worry about what your textbook says.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I come from a scientific background, and so when sourcing facts different sources have different levels of value. Wikipedia is good for off the cuff referencing, but it is not a valid source to trump an accredited textbook or encyclopedia, hence why I won't accept it's validity vs a superior source unless the credentials of the author of that section of wikipedia can be proven to be valid. Last I checked, you generally cannot prove the author's credentials on wikipedia.

I agree that the deaths in China do not prove that it uses a social darwinist philosophy, the two are not comparable, however I refute the validity of the example in terms of this discussion. Given the definition I have at this moment,

How is an economic policy engaging in unrestrained competition to promote the better health of it's economy not a model for evolution?

How is a population engaging in unrestrained competition to promote the better health of it's population not a model for evolution?

As for your statement of defining an '-ism' in terms of what it's population believes, I do have to agree with you, this makes logical sense. To an extent one could argue that a unified group may have it's definition set by it's leaders even though it's adherents don't necesserily fit the bill, but in the case of social darwinism there is no leadership, and so only the actions and beliefs of the people can set the definition. I am, however, not a social darwinist, nor do I know a social darwinist, and so I can only go by written definitions as to what social darwinism is.

 

[Nathan45]

Ragarth:

you're missing a fundamental difference between free market capitalism and your variation of "social darwinism"

The key difference is not the "what" but the "why".

for example, a free market capitalist, would advocate privatized health care and oppose universal healthcare, because they believe the free market on it's own can do a better job at providing better health care to more people than the government can and that the government mandating universal healthcare would be impossible to implement effectively.

A social darwinist (by your definition) would advocate the same thing, but for a different reason (promote evolution by culling the weak) with a different expected result (instead of expecting the free market to produce better heatlh care and quality of life for more people, the social darwinist wouldn't expect this nor desire it)

 

[Nathan45]

I come from a scientific background,

Disagreeing on the definition of "Social Darwinism" is not a scientific question, that's a semantic question, nor is arguing till you are blue in the face of what words mean in any way a scientific pursuit.

Wikipedia is good for off the cuff referencing, but it is not a valid source to trump an accredited textbook or encyclopedia, hence why I won't accept it's validity vs a superior source unless the credentials of the author of that section of wikipedia can be proven to be valid. Last I checked, you generally cannot prove the author's credentials on wikipedia.

1) Try scrolling to the bottom, wiki articles are almost always well cited.
2) If i was looking for the commonly held definition of a word, i'd take wikipedia over a dusty old encyclopedia any day. Word meanings change constantly, and there are multiple definitions for the same word.

Not that it matters though, a word only means what it's agreed to mean between the people who are communicating it or hearing it, regardless of what any outside sources say. Therefore, If you wish to debate free market captitalism with Eudamonist you ought to start out defining your terms and then moving on to more constructive persuits. Until then, saying "Free market capitalism is Social Darwinism" is nothing more than an equivocation fallacy.

 

[ragarth]

I admit defeat. During my offtime I looked for alternate sources and I am indeed wrong. I don't know if this is due to a misunderstanding of the quote I gave in the text book, or if the textbook provided the wrong definition.