Position:Home>Philosophy> Why are social Darwinists like Herbert Spencer demonized?
Question: Why are social Darwinists like Herbert Spencer demonized!?
Given that these theories suggest a kind of automatic social stratification by biology, which would give credence to a theory of a natural order of races, I understand why one would approach the work cautiously!. However, Spencer in particular promoted a laissez-faire approach to government, which would reject any proactive attempt at eugenics, or other "racist" and "Nazi" activities often linked to (or suggested as the inevitable result of) social Darwinism!.
At worst, we can blame these thinkers for being products of their age, when racial superiority was a widely held belief, even among many other American thinkers that are held in high regard today (consider the doctrine of manifest destiny or the white man's burden)!.
Why, then, are social Darwinists frequently singled out as evil racists that need to be apologized for!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
whattttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt!.!.!. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!.!.!.
##############Www@QuestionHome@Com
Because Hitler's eradication of inferior species was based on it!. It's just helping out evolution to rid humanity of inferior races!.
It's also ridiculous and an insult to science that requires MORE of a leap of faith to buy into it at it's bottom line than Intelligent Design!.
And eugenics is just the natural progression, c'mon, you know what motivates individuals!.!.!. this kind of thinking puts the man in an entirely dangerous direction!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
The Holocaust changed every ones view towards eugenics!. Eugenics was widespread before the Holocaust, but not to that level or intensity!.
Eugenics is still around, but it isn't as cruel and rabid as it used to be!. Www@QuestionHome@Com
The lack of an objective description of why one society is more evolved than another is probably the most reasonable answer!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Whatever form of government or social organization you want to promote in principle is besides the point!. If people are convinced of some belief, they will find ways of expressing it, regardless of the laws which predominate, by that I mean there will be sublimated, concealed, and as yet masked effects of prejudice!. Which is why this is a moral problem and not a factual one!. In other words, you have to make a choice, between a form of moral idealism or factual materialism!.
If we create a theory showing that eating small children is ultimately going to add decades to our lives, does this in any way legitimate the eating of children!?
Put another way, a scientific theory is a discourse subsumed by power, and will be marked by our current historical understanding, our current cultural paradigm, and the influences which mark and twist the 'objectiveness' of such claims!. This is to say that our worldview is intimately connected with the actions taken against people and institutionalized in our practices!.
The point being, that as time progresses we may recognize that science is simply one form of 'truth', and should not be enthroned for all time as the absolute perspective on things!. Human matters are never so simple, and to relegate the human condition to the domain of science may turn out to be just as dogmatic and divisive as religion was throughout the dark ages and medieval period!. Www@QuestionHome@Com