Difference between revisions of "Social Darwinism"
(states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die) |
(Ref + main paragraph instead of quote) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | '''Social Darwinism''' is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era in England, America, and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die. The theory was chiefly expounded by Herbert Spencer, whose ethical philosophies always held an elitist view and received a boost from the application of Darwinian ideas such as adaptation and natural selection. <ref>[http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml Social Darwinism] at Thinkquest, retrieved on 08/04/2008</ref> | |
| − | + | ||
Beginning in 1887, social scientists were using the term "social Darwinism" to apply the survival-of-the-fittest theory to social situations. Under this theory, the wealthiest or most powerful in society must be biologically superior, and less "fit" persons should die. | Beginning in 1887, social scientists were using the term "social Darwinism" to apply the survival-of-the-fittest theory to social situations. Under this theory, the wealthiest or most powerful in society must be biologically superior, and less "fit" persons should die. | ||
Soon many began to view racial struggles, and war itself, as a perfectly natural example of survival-of-the-fittest in the human race. The horrific wars of the 20th century, employing shockingly brutal tactics, were encouraged by a belief in survival-of-the-fittest among humans. While social Darwinism itself was applied to social and economic situations rather than military ones, it is easy how extreme versions of social Darwinism could justify physical struggles among races. | Soon many began to view racial struggles, and war itself, as a perfectly natural example of survival-of-the-fittest in the human race. The horrific wars of the 20th century, employing shockingly brutal tactics, were encouraged by a belief in survival-of-the-fittest among humans. While social Darwinism itself was applied to social and economic situations rather than military ones, it is easy how extreme versions of social Darwinism could justify physical struggles among races. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | |||
| + | <references/> | ||
Revision as of 13:37, April 8, 2008
Social Darwinism is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era in England, America, and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die. The theory was chiefly expounded by Herbert Spencer, whose ethical philosophies always held an elitist view and received a boost from the application of Darwinian ideas such as adaptation and natural selection. [1]
Beginning in 1887, social scientists were using the term "social Darwinism" to apply the survival-of-the-fittest theory to social situations. Under this theory, the wealthiest or most powerful in society must be biologically superior, and less "fit" persons should die.
Soon many began to view racial struggles, and war itself, as a perfectly natural example of survival-of-the-fittest in the human race. The horrific wars of the 20th century, employing shockingly brutal tactics, were encouraged by a belief in survival-of-the-fittest among humans. While social Darwinism itself was applied to social and economic situations rather than military ones, it is easy how extreme versions of social Darwinism could justify physical struggles among races.
References
- ↑ Social Darwinism at Thinkquest, retrieved on 08/04/2008
