NOTICE: Citizendium is still being set up on its newer server, treat as a beta for now; please see here for more.
Citizendium - a community developing a quality comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free. Click here to join and contribute—free
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report -- Thanks to our content contributors. --

Social Darwinism

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Revision as of 15:07, 12 April 2008 by Tom Morris (Talk | contribs) (New page: {{subpages}} '''Social Darwinism''' was an attempt in the late nineteenth century to rebase ethics and social policy on an understanding of the Darwinian notion...)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
This editable Main Article is under development and not meant to be cited; by editing it you can help to improve it towards a future approved, citable version. These unapproved articles are subject to a disclaimer.

Social Darwinism was an attempt in the late nineteenth century to rebase ethics and social policy on an understanding of the Darwinian notion of a struggle for existence. The term social Darwinism is pejorative, and usually refers to the writings of Francis Galton, Herbert Spencer and originally Thomas Malthus. Social Darwinism can refer to both the idea that societies evolve in broadly the same way that nature does, but also to the far more controversial idea that we should actively plan social policy around this.

Darwin's belief in Social Darwinism has been a question which many historians have debated (and creationists have used as a red herring). The subtitle of The Origin of Species, "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" has been seen as an indicator of a belief in racial difference on the part of Darwin, but his negative reaction to policies suggested by Herbert Spencer, and his opposition to slavery seem to suggest that Darwin was more liberal[1].

The beliefs of the social Darwinists have been used as one of the driving forces behind eugenics (specifically by Francis Galton) and the belief in genetic determinism. Some of these factors also shaped the values of the Nazis.

The vast majority of biologists and philosophers are now critical of social Darwinism, and other attempts to draw normative ethics from the fact of evolution. Here is an example of this from Richard Dawkins:

I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. I stress this, because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all too numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what is the case from an advocacy of what ought to be the case. My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene's law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true.[2]

  1. Isaak, Mark. CA005.1: Darwin's racism in Index of Creationist Claims
  2. Dawkins, Richard. (1976) The Selfish Gene, p.2-3.