[Disclaimer: The following essays were submitted by students. Small Planet Communications takes no responsibility for the opinions or content expressed in the essays.]


Social Darwinism: A Means of Justification

by Ryan Westra

The dictionary defines the word justify as 1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid. 2. To declare free of blame, absolve. In that case when you have to justify something it must not be right in the first place. Hitler used social Darwinism to justify his ideas of hate and the killing of millions of Jews. What he did was undisputedly wrong. Had what he done been right, why would there be a need to justify it? The term social Darwinism is so vague that it can be used to defend the arguments of people with such different viewpoints. It doesn¹t speak of one race of people or a type of religion; therefore it can apply to just about anything. Even to someone like Adolf Hitler.

When Darwin stated his he was studying animals in nature, not human Nature. These theories apply to humans in the sense that we physically undergo changes to cope with our environment. War is not natural selection, this is something that man has brought on each other, nature has nothing to do with this. Humans are intelligent enough that we do not need to compete against each other for land or food. Social Darwinism is used to justify a king who wants more land that already has too much, or a bigger throne to sit on. Just because a nation has better weapons doesn¹t mean it has better genes. A sickly person can fire cannon at the enemy with swords, but the people wielding swords and wearing more armor are obviously in better physical condition. Now just because the civilization with cannons has better technology doesn't mean they are better. They are sick and will eventually die off. Now if they didn't kill each other and were peaceful and mixed the two gene pools they would have a race superior to what one of them where. This is why Darwin¹s theories apply to nature, not human nature.

Josiah Strong¹s piece is completely illogical. First of all he states that of the great ideas of mankind is liberty. How is taking over and forcing your beliefs on others follow the idea of liberty? The ideas that Christianity preaches are getting along with your fellow man not taking them over. If the United States were to take over another countries and force our beliefs upon, wouldn¹t that go against all that this country was built upon? The other passage is applying to all nations and peoples, but this section is being applied only to Christian Americans. It is very biased in the way that these are Strong¹s beliefs and that is the way that it is going to be.

This passage does not apply to Darwin¹s theories; once again it applies to human nature. The idea Strong proposes has nothing to with nature, but deals with what America will have to do to keep expanding. If you look at nature animals don¹t conquer each other or have wars they co-exist not take each other over because one species believes itself superior to another.

* * * * * *

Social Darwinism

by Tabby Hall

Social Darwinism is a theory made by Charles Darwin. It stated that, basically, it was survival of the fittest. The weak diminished and eventually all died, and the strong got more power and continued to grow. The argument for social Darwinism is similar to the principles of Darwin's theory because it says in the very beginning that the nations are in a struggle for survival, the advanced people will prosper, while the weaker ones will eventually die off. I found the in Josiah Strong's argument to be logical, although I don't think that we're going to be the only civilization to outnumber all the others. It differs from the other argument because Josiah is saying that we'll just take over everything and the other argument is saying that all the weaker civilizations will die off. Josiah is just using this for a reason to expand.

It follows Darwin's line of reasoning because Josiah is saying that the United States is one of the strongest countries, so it will prosper and grow stronger while the other countries, the weaker ones, will die off. In my opinion, I do believe that Social Darwinism is how things work these days. If your rich then you got it made, if not then oh well. Should it be like this? No, but is it? yes. The strongest will always be in the best case to prosper more and more while the weak will keep getting weaker until they eventually die off. When you see someone on the side of the road, that has no home or job, I'm sure you don't think how they're gonna become rich, instead, if your think anything, you think that they'll always be that bum on the side of the road and eventually die. No one ever expects that they'll become a stronger person and prosper in life. If anyone wants to go anywhere in life or be someone they're going to have to work for it. Another reason for believing in social Darwinism is look at the extinct animals, people came along the way, and killed them off because the people were the stronger of the two. So Darwin's theory that the stronger will survive, proves to be true once again. These would be some examples of why I believe in Social Darwinism.

* * * * * *

Social Darwinism in the Business World

by Mary Carroll

The theory of natural selection does adhere to the principals of Darwin's theory. Darwin believed that the stronger would live on by adapting to the environment around them while the weaker would just eventually die off. The stronger would adapt while giving them time to reproduce into more organisms, or animals. If specie was to live on, some others forms may come of it. From reproduction, alterations may be made naturally. Social Darwinism can be shown through history. Many leaders of the world and important persons that changed the world's history have used Darwin's theory.

The idea of racial supremacy and the survival of the fittest race, (Darwinism) reached its zenith with the national socialist party of Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler was an evolutionist. This dictator believed at one point that everyone should be what he considered to be "perfect." Blonde hair and blue eyes were a must to Hitler. He thought of them as better people, he wanted the others, including the Jewish to die off. "The Jews formed a sub-human counter race, predestined by their biological heritage to evil, just as the Nordic race was destined for nobility."

Karl Marx was a great thinker that was concerned with the human freedom. Capitalism was able to perpetuate the illusion of freedom. He believed that all human beings enter into a certain productive relation that forms their life (hunting, gathering food, and certain economic foundations) this makes the human being stronger and gives a rise to a form of social consciousness. (Darwinism)

A man named Friedrich Nietzsche was the founder of the “God is dead” fame adapted Darwin’s ideas and came up with a "superman" or "super-race" philosophy. The idea of natural selection was taken a step farther by Nietzsche. He suggested that welfare, eugenics, and merciless extinction of inferior race was appropriate. Friedrich Nietzsche later went insane.

Josiah Strong believed that the Anglo-Saxon race will out number all other civilized races of the earth. I personally don't believe that this would happen due to the earth becoming more equal every day. He is implying that the Anglo-Saxons are more intelligent from basically their location on the globe, the United States helped them to become more dominant than before. He believes the other less-educated worlds would eventually die off. They wouldn't have the ability to reach the maximum learning level they could in another world. The first passage is Darwin's explanation on what he thinks. Darwin is not pinpointing his theory down to the race yet Strong is trying to predict what the outcome of the world would be.

* * * * * *

Return to Social Darwinism page.

Small Planet Communications, Inc.   Return to top of page