Spencer’s views on Social Darwinism and laissez-faire policy

5 Commentsby   |  03.21.11  |  Pre-Renaissance (Part I)

Since reading chapter ten for class a few weeks ago, Spencer’s ideas towards the poor have bugged me. Spencer was a firm believer in survival of the fittest and “created” Social Darwinism. Spencer believed that those not able to fend for themselves, because of social class, should not be helped. He believed in laissez-faire policy which would leave these people on their own with no help the government. Our book quotes Spencer’s opinion on the policy as follows, “If [individuals] are sufficiently complete to live, they do live…If they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best that they should die”. Granted this is an extreme view but it makes me really think if its completely wrong. On one hand I can see how this would be beneficial to society. By the government not taking care of some of these people, i.e. drug addicts, taxes many not be as high or those tax dollars would be going to something more beneficial like education instead of supporting these people’s drug habits. However on the other hand some people honestly need it and their situation may not be entirely their fault. Due to the way things have changed in the past few years it has been hard on many people to provide for themselves and their families, I don’t believe that those people should be punished for that. I personally believe that our government is suppose to help us to a certain extent but we should not completely rely on our government to hand us everything.

Comment

5 Comments

  1. Anna Brinkman
    10:31 pm, 03.21.11

    I think seeing how extreme this view is helps to show a change in thinking not only in different societies, but especially in different times. I feel like that was kind of a prominent view of the day (…I may be wrong there…) and it is so different today. I, too, am bothered by Spencer’s view on this. I think that your last sentence really sums up my view on it as well.

  2. Bradye McQueen
    10:32 pm, 03.21.11

    I like the way you think. I sometimes wish I could punch some of these theorists in the face, but I guess I should respect the fact that they at least tried. We are called to love on those that are weak, and actually realize that they are the strong ones. Without love, Spencer would totally be right in saying that the ones who are not sufficiently complete die. But thank goodness not everyone agreed with him because then we would have such a messed up world. Without the weak there would be no strong. I hope our world never gets to be so “complete” and full of the fittest people. That makes me sick to think about.

  3. Lacy Hanson
    11:06 pm, 03.21.11

    I couldn’t agree more with your thoughts. The government is set up to help us in times of need and be a structure. It was not designed to give handouts to those who aren’t willing to work and want the government to support their drug habits, etc.

  4. John Day IV
    11:09 pm, 03.21.11

    In an ideological since I like what you say but there are a lot of issue at least in this country with pulling it off. For starters the nation debt of our country has just hit within about the same level as our GDP (gross domestic product). Social Security and Medicare, programs that help in your cause, are now either taking in a much as they are giving out or their about to be contributing the problem. Natural resources are in decline and alternatives are at best impractical at this time to make up for the lowering supply. The population of the earth is ever increasing causing higher demand on food, highly dependent on oil. Our population is getting older by the day causing additional strain to SS and Medicare, 40% of registered voters are in the AARP. Point being it is impractical for our government to provide for everyone and I would bet it is only going to get worse, bringing social Darwinism at its best unless we all make cuts.

    GDP http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+gdp
    National Debt http://www.usdebtclock.org/

  5. Lindsey Fleming
    11:54 pm, 03.21.11

    I think this is where we have to look at things from a spiritual perspective. Should we really be most concerned about having the strongest, most advanced society? Is that our purpose in life? If that was so, than he would be correct, but it urks us as Christians because there is a conflict in us with the American Dream. Is it about gain and power? or is it about caring for others who are weak and in need? The bible tells us that it is when we are weak, then we are truly strong…so maybe we have our priorities mixed up.

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.