a question about social darwinism?

Question

social darwinism says society would benefit from the weeding out of the unfit, but what if an incredibly stupid person gets really lucky and wins the lottery, therefore making a really successful company? they wouldnt be considered unfit, correct?

ok, so by 'fit/unfit' they mean physically, not economically? or do they mean mentally too? argh im so confused by this 'social.. darwinism' thing

Answer 1

Incredibly stupid obviously does not equal unfit in this instance, now does it?

Answer 2

To be honest it may just be a matter of opinion. To me if a person is stupid and there's no room for improvement then they should still be weeded out. If a person wins the lottery, it doesn't necessarily mean that the company they make will be successful.

However, if the company is successful... I guess it kind of depends on what that company is. Is it there to build the economy, or is it destructive?

If a stupid person starts a company and it becomes successful, you'd think that it'd be because they found the right people to run it in which case they were either a.) lucky or b.) intelligent. If they were lucky though, I guess they could be fit due to the fact that they are a statistical anomaly.

If this doesn't answer your question, I hope it at least gets you part way there. It certainly is an interesting question.

Answer 3

I have a hard time even thinking of people of any kind as unfit- We are all fit just in different ways- I work with the MRDD population (mentally retarded develpomentally disabled) and those with extreme physical handicaps... I could never think that society be with out them I have learned so much


But then the majority of the public view them as unfit or not normal... Funny, they are NORMAL just not typical they would not know anything other than how they are from birth-

Social Darwism really blows if you ask me...

We need to all learn the lessons given us and open our eyes and hearts to those different...

Thanks for this question you made me think alot!

Answer 4

Note this site: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part14.html

It is a short paragraph that talks about clarifying the intent of Darwinism and notes that there is the need to combat "illogical extensions" of Darwin's theory (to "Social Darwinism"). Having said that (and hoping you take a look at that page),

Fit doesn't have to mean intellligent versis not intelligent. It could mean of very good character versus being of poorer character. It could mean having wealth versus not having wealth. It could mean being educated versus not being educated. It could mean anything, but because those working to keep Darwin's work understood and clear do not approve of the "extension" of his theory to something like this, there is almost no point discussing it.

I don't believe that someone who is "really stupid" is any "less fit" than someone who isn't. I also do not believe that having money makes anyone - brilliant or stupid - more fit for anything. I would think the "unfit" would more be people like criminals, who make society less safe and who don't behave or work in a way that contributes.

Any society does quite nicely with a mix of intelligence levels, and it can do nicely enough with a mix of levels of wealth. No society benefits from criminals.

Answer 5

Generally, the unfit of any species are weeded out because of their inability to survive and pass on their genes. In most industrialized nations, however, we offer humanitarian aid to those who are less capable.

(Regarding the possibility of an unfit individual rising to the top, I could make a strong political statement here, but this question isn't designed to deal with politics.)

Answer 6

Social darwinism is a wretched, terrible theory used by bullies to justify their behavior, essentially. It doesn't necessarily mean just physically fit; the original social darwinists were colonialists who were using the theory to justify the slaughter of native populations. The natives were by no means less fit than the colonialists, except that the colonialists, because of, oh, a whole slew of reasons that had nothing to do with intelligence or good genes or anything like that, had better technology. Basically, social darwinism can be used by anyone on top to make themselves feel superior. Your lottery winner could claim he was most fit because of his luck, Paris Hilton would claim her wealth, and Bill Gates could claim his intelligence as rendering him the most fit. In general, though, the theory says that those on top deserve to be on top because they are better than the fools below them.

Answer 7

Social Darwinism is a concept not a theory. It was started 100 to200 years ago by applying the laws of Darwinism to society. It has been proved to be a false concept. So your question holds no merit.

Answer 8

Social Darwinism relates to both mentally and physically unfit people. if i remember correctly Charles Darwin related human beings to other animals and other animals can't win lotteries.

Answer 9

you recognize it quite is humorous, the main religious creationists tend to be the biggest social Darwinists. people who settle for organic and organic evolution by using organic decision are commonly avidly against social Darwinism. that should could desire to do with education point and politics (capitalism DOES dip its feet interior the pool of social Darwinism). information human historic past and the place social Darwinism comes from is considerable. It actual would not come from Darwin... i think of he could have condemned it.

Answer 10

The darwinian aspect of the question, I believe, is referring to the physically unfit - those who in basic societies, would not be selected for breeding. In those societies strength and guile would be more highly valued than in present day society - wherein economic success not dependant upon strength has supplanted physical breeding profiles.