Last week in my U.S. History class, the class participated in a debate. The topic was Social Darwinist vs. Non-Social Darwinist. Originally, I had joined the Non-Social Darwinist side, but I realized that, after listening to the points that each side had made, that I agreed with neither side of the argument, and I formed my own third party. In the process of voicing my views, I was interrupted a number of times. Because of this, I lost my train of thought and I didn’t exactly say things the way I wanted to. I made a fool of myself and was quickly shut down by the rest of the class, and the teacher. This article will be my chance to voice my opinion and prove my side of things. Please take the time to listen to my thoughts and consider my views in competition with others. By the way, I’ve been very successful in debates in the past...
Social Darwinism is the belief that the best equipped and the most powerful people will survive in a society, and the weakest and worst equipped will die off. This is commonly referred to as survival of the fittest, which was a theory developed by Darwin to explain the evolution of the world and how species die off. It basically says that the strongest survive and the weakest don’t, which means that there would only be the strong in the world, and not the weak. Does this theory apply to a human society? That was what our debate was all about.
The supporters or Social Darwinism made a few basic points. They said that only the best of the best would be selected for the jobs they need, and the people who aren’t the best would have to go elsewhere. Their accusation to the other side is that the other side would hire basically anyone who wanted the job without question of who was more fit for it. They also believed that the best would be the ones who would progress America into something even greater.
The offending side had very different claims. Their accusation was that the supported of Social Darwinism would lead to Dictatorship, and that everyone would be treated as an expendable in that type of environment. They claimed that the people were not going to be able to hold jobs and that the companies would eventually run out of the "most fit” people, since many of them would not be able to hold up.
Please do note that the above two paragraphs are just summaries and do not quote the exact words of the people representing each side.
Now I formed my own party for a reason, which is obviously that I don’t agree with either side. I originally said they were both wrong, but what I meant to say is that neither side is exactly right on the subject. Here comes my side of the debate and my views.
Neither side is taking into account everything involved in Social Darwinism and survival of the fittest. Let’s look at Bobby Kennedy and JFK as an example. Keep in mind that I am not using this example because it is the best candidate for the debate, but because it is a notable event that everyone is able to understand. Shortly after JFK had been elected into office as the President of The United Sates, he chose his brother, Bobby Kennedy, to become the Attorney General of the country. Now, Bobby was just John’s brother. Bobby had never been an attorney, he had no experience in law, and he had never went to a law school or practiced law in any way. And yet, in this situation, he was still chosen, without consideration of the 4.0+ Grade Ivy League School Graduates who had been attorneys for 20+ years, who most likely were more fit and more deserving of such a high ranking job, rather than someone who was so inexperienced. Now the question in this example is this: Who in the situation is the "fittest” person for the job of Attorney General? What the class was doing wrong was focusing solely on economics and money. In a survival of the fittest society, one must consider all aspects of a society and a life. In an economic only world, the 4.0 GPA Grad Students would be the most fit people, and they would have been given the jobs. But in a real world society, there is more than just an economic aspect. Given that Bobby Kennedy had connections to the President of the United States, he had the ability to get that job regardless of his credentials. This is an example of a real world survival of the fittest situation. Yes, you’re credentials matter, and how well equipped you are matters, but there are multiple other factors. In this case, the fact that Bobby knew people who could take him straight to the top gave him an advantage over his more experienced competition. This, obviously, made him more "fit” in the situation. Not necessarily better equipped in the situation, but more in the sense that due to the people he knew, he had opportunities that others weren’t given, regardless of how much they deserved that position.
In today’s education, America has something called "No Child Left Behind”. We have this so that we can focus on giving everyone a chance, even if they may not start off the line as the smartest or most efficient beings. If we adopted a ‘survival of the fittest’ attitude, programs like this one would not exist and people like this could be left behind. Take a look at ADHD or ADD. I know many people who have ADHD and ADD, including my own little brother. Many of these people need some help when they’re younger to get through school due to this condition. Yet, many people with ADD or ADHD come out to be the smartest, most creative people on our Earth. Without programs like "No Child Left Behind”, these children would have been deserted in first grade and would never have received the help they needed. At that, they wouldn’t be able to reach their full potential, which in turn would cause some of the most fit and well equipped people of the future to be thrown out of the picture before the picture was even painted. This would be the cost of choosing Social Darwinism as a policy in the United States.
However, if we were to adopt a completely Non-Darwinistic view, things would not be much better. So much would be invested into forcing the low end of the society, that the high end would begin to fall because of lack of pressure. If no one pushes anyone to work hard on the fit end of society, then society will stop trying to be fit. This would cause society to fail and crash.
One of the accusations that the Darwinists made against their opponents is that they believed that we were wasting money on welfare when some people abuse it and use it to live off of even though they are able to work, just simply because they don’t want to. The reality is this: Whether or not you choose Darwinism or not, or even if you chose my third party; There will always people who abuse the system to use it to their advantage. The society will never be a perfect place, but the whole point of adopting either of these systems is to help it improve.
Personally, I believe that neither should be adopted. I believe that some of the best candidates for society today can come from the bottom, so survival of the fittest is not a perfect system. But neither is going completely away from Survival of the fittest completely, because then everyone would go nowhere and society would crash. Society needs to find somewhere in between, where everyone in the society gets opportunity and then the best people get chosen.
|
