Welcome to CE Stoicism

... In the interests of historical accuracy, however, it should be clearly recognized that “social Darwinism” has very little to do with the ideas developed by Charles Darwin in “On the Origin of Species.” Social Darwinism emerged as a movement in the late 19th-century, and has had waves of popularity ever since, but its central ideas owe more to the thought of a luminary of that time, Herbert Spencer, whose writings are (to understate) no longer widely read.

Spencer, who coined the phrase “survival of the fittest,” thought about natural selection on a grand scale. Conceiving selection in pre-Darwinian terms — as a ruthless process, “red in tooth and claw” — he viewed human culture and human societies as progressing through fierce competition. Provided that policymakers do not take foolish steps to protect the weak, those people and those human achievements that are fittest — most beautiful, noble, wise, creative, virtuous, and so forth — will succeed in a fierce competition, so that, over time, humanity and its accomplishments will continually improve. Late 19th-century dynastic capitalists, especially the American “robber barons,” found this vision profoundly congenial. Their contemporary successors like it for much the same reasons ...

Although social Darwinism has often been closely connected with ideas in eugenics (pampering the weak will lead to the “decline of the race”) and with theories of racial superiority (the economic and political dominance of people of North European extraction is a sign that some racial groups are intrinsically better than others), these are not central to the position.

The heart of social Darwinism is a pair of theses: first, people have intrinsic abilities and talents (and, correspondingly, intrinsic weaknesses), which will be expressed in their actions and achievements, independently of the social, economic and cultural environments in which they develop; second, intensifying competition enables the most talented to develop their potential to the full, and thereby to provide resources for a society that make life better for all. ...

There are very good reasons to think both theses are false. ... [Successfully people's] success has been facilitated by all kinds of social structures, by educational opportunities and legal restrictions, that were in place prior to and independently of their personal efforts or achievements. For those born into environments in which silver spoons rarely appear ... the contributions of the social environment are even more apparent. Without enormous support, access to inspiring teachers and skillful doctors, the backing of self-sacrificing relatives and a broader community, and without a fair bit of luck, the vast majority of people, not only in the United States but throughout the world, would never achieve the things of which they are, in principle, capable.

Second, even if rigorous competition enables the talented — or, better, the lucky — to realize their goals, it is completely unwarranted to suppose that their accomplishments will translate into any increased benefit for the overwhelming majority of those who are less fortunate. The strenuous struggle social Darwinism envisages might select for something, but the most likely traits are a tendency to take whatever steps are necessary to achieve a foreseeable end, a sharp focus on narrowly individual goals and a corresponding disregard for others. We might reasonably expect that a world run on social Darwinist lines would generate a cadre of plutocrats, each resolutely concerned to establish a dynasty and to secure his favored branch of industry against future competition. In practical terms it would almost certainly yield a world in which the gap between rich and poor was even larger than it is now.

Rather than the beauty, wisdom, virtue and nobility Spencer envisioned arising from fierce competition, the likely products would be laws repealing inheritance taxes and deregulating profitable activities, and a vast population of people whose lives were even further diminished.

Yet, even if stimulating competition would achieve greater economic productivity, and even if this would, by some miraculous mechanism, yield a more egalitarian distribution of economic resources (presumably through the provision of more remunerative jobs), these welcome material benefits are not all that is needed. To quote a much-cited book, we do not “live by bread alone.” If the vast majority of citizens (or, globally, of people) are to enjoy any opportunities to develop the talents they have, they need the social structures social Darwinism perceives as pampering and counter-productive. Human well-being is profoundly affected by public goods, a concept that is entirely antithetical to social Darwinism ... , with their mythical citizens who can fulfill their potential without rich systems of social support. It is a callous fiction to suppose that what is needed is less investment in education, health care, public transportation and affordable public housing.

During the antebellum period in the United States, William Graham Sumner (1963) was the nation's leading Social Darwinist; he was also the nation's first sociologist. Sumner adopted Spencer's ideas of laissez-faire government, natural selection, and survival of the fittest and applied them to American society. Essentially, he held that what is is Nature's stamp of apprival of what ought to be. Comment: But 'is' is different from 'ought'. See is/ought fallacy below. Positioning the peculiar institution of American Slavery within Darwinist and Spencerian Framers of reference, Sumner reason that because slavery permitted superior groups the leisure to construct and develop more refined cultures, it actually advanced the cause of humanity (Bierstedt, 1981). He viewed American society, particularly the American business class, as representative of the natural order of things and the living example of Spencer's fitness thesis. Sumner took such a stance without equivocation because he believed all individuals begin the competitive socioeconomic race on an equal footing We do not believe this true. See descriptions of the natural and social lotteries, above. Even if the competition is unequal or certain individuals are given an edge, it was his contention that the element of chance, along with motivation and natural ability, were the deciding factors determining an individual's or group's fate.While we believe an individual/group has some agency to influence their situation, we believe social factors beyond an individual/group's control can often be more determinative in deciding their fate.

...the argument raised by Social Darwinists is that individual characteristics are shaped by genetics and thus are firm and fixed for all groups at all times.

...culture, intellect, and knowledge are racially determined, fix, and hence not subject to devices of social reconstruction. Moreover, they [Social Darwinists] also maintain that negative aspects of group or individual behaviors are reflections of preordained dispositions unchangeable by the group, the individual, or the society. ... they contend that attempts to change the behaviors or improve the intellect of a given group or individual are foolish and destined to fail. ... Nature supersedes nuture, 'bright' makes right, and those who have the ability to engage successfully on Nature's battlefield can and should do so, oblivious to the needs of others. We do not think culture, intellect, knowledge, behavior or disposition are fix or largely genetically determined. We think social effects (i.e. nurture) can greatly influence these characteristics. We think it irresponsible ignoring the needs of others in need.

...

[The have-nots], because they have failed the Darwinist/Spencerian survival-of-the-fittest test, ought not to be given social consideration, remediation, compassion, or compensation to 'level the playing field.' Again, 'is' is different from 'ought'. See is/ought fallacy below.