Difference between revisions of "Social Darwinism"
m |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Social Darwinism.jpg|thumb|300px|An illustration of Social Darwinism]] | [[File:Social Darwinism.jpg|thumb|300px|An illustration of Social Darwinism]] | ||
| − | ==== | + | ====Description==== |
The principles of evolution dictate that those with beneficial mutations are more likely to survive while those with non-beneficial mutations will fail. Likewise there are sometimes non-beneficial traits that people possess that make them more likely to "fail." These things can be genetic or developed elsewhere. Things like health issues, chronic conditions, disabilities, etc. The idea of Social Darwinism in it's most extreme is that it is natural that these people fail, and that society shouldn't feel responsible for taking care of them. Basically, it's a dog eat dog world. | The principles of evolution dictate that those with beneficial mutations are more likely to survive while those with non-beneficial mutations will fail. Likewise there are sometimes non-beneficial traits that people possess that make them more likely to "fail." These things can be genetic or developed elsewhere. Things like health issues, chronic conditions, disabilities, etc. The idea of Social Darwinism in it's most extreme is that it is natural that these people fail, and that society shouldn't feel responsible for taking care of them. Basically, it's a dog eat dog world. | ||
| − | ==== | + | ====How it works==== |
While some people might have arguments about whether or not we can save money on health care by giving the government more control in regulating costs vs offering incentives for organizations that self regulate Social Darwinist's know the best way to save money on health care is to not pay for it in the first place! It turns out you can save tons of money by adopting Social Darwinism. Balancing the government's budget will never be easier... in fact why have a governmental budget at all? People should take care of themselves, right? | While some people might have arguments about whether or not we can save money on health care by giving the government more control in regulating costs vs offering incentives for organizations that self regulate Social Darwinist's know the best way to save money on health care is to not pay for it in the first place! It turns out you can save tons of money by adopting Social Darwinism. Balancing the government's budget will never be easier... in fact why have a governmental budget at all? People should take care of themselves, right? | ||
| − | ==== | + | ==== Evidence ==== |
| − | + | A study at Harvard found that having a high propensity for social dominance made people less tolerant of others, less likely to help those less fortunate than you, and more politically conservative. They also found that they are more likely to believe that a higher power will take care of people who need taken care of.<ref>Pratto, Felicia, et al. "Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes." Journal of personality and social psychology 67.4 (1994): 741. </ref>These things could correlate with ideas of social darwinism. | |
| + | |||
| + | ====Links==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Violence]], [[Eye for an Eye – Retribution]], [[Silenced Voices]], [[Monopoly]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====References==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml | ||
| + | |||
| + | <references/> | ||
Latest revision as of 15:03, 11 March 2014
Description
The principles of evolution dictate that those with beneficial mutations are more likely to survive while those with non-beneficial mutations will fail. Likewise there are sometimes non-beneficial traits that people possess that make them more likely to "fail." These things can be genetic or developed elsewhere. Things like health issues, chronic conditions, disabilities, etc. The idea of Social Darwinism in it's most extreme is that it is natural that these people fail, and that society shouldn't feel responsible for taking care of them. Basically, it's a dog eat dog world.
How it works
While some people might have arguments about whether or not we can save money on health care by giving the government more control in regulating costs vs offering incentives for organizations that self regulate Social Darwinist's know the best way to save money on health care is to not pay for it in the first place! It turns out you can save tons of money by adopting Social Darwinism. Balancing the government's budget will never be easier... in fact why have a governmental budget at all? People should take care of themselves, right?
Evidence
A study at Harvard found that having a high propensity for social dominance made people less tolerant of others, less likely to help those less fortunate than you, and more politically conservative. They also found that they are more likely to believe that a higher power will take care of people who need taken care of.[1]These things could correlate with ideas of social darwinism.
Links
Violence, Eye for an Eye – Retribution, Silenced Voices, Monopoly
References
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml
- ↑ Pratto, Felicia, et al. "Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes." Journal of personality and social psychology 67.4 (1994): 741.
