Social Darwinism: Two Perspectives

A commonly accepted perspective concerning Darwin’s theory of “Survival of the Fittest and Natural Selection,” as it relates to sociological factors in humans, assumes that humans who are stronger (physically and immunologically) and more highly motivated to advantage, will better survive environmental changes.  The “Might Makes Right” proposition of Nietzsche and Mao is thought to apply.  Those who are more motivated (giving in to a release of moral stricture) to acquire wealth and power, according to the first perspective, will survive and thrive, thus creating Hegelian History; while those who are weak and morally tempered will succumb, being relegated to lower socio-economic levels, more difficult lives and suffering.

However, the second perspective, still based upon Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest, takes into account the more inclusive consideration of human nature as it may relate to Freudian theory.  Thus, Freud divided the human mind into categories.  The id, most closely associated with animal instinct, i.e. self preservation and aggression, in conjunction with aspects of the ego, i.e. self image related to properties of the id, including sexual conquest, the sublime sense of power and libidinal gratification in various forms, refer us to the first perspective that assumes the necessary characteristics of greed, selfishness, lack of moral conviction and, indeed, lack of sympathy and empathy for others. 

However, the second perspective of social Darwinism includes consideration of the Freudian superego, a true sense of humanity, moral sensibility and recognition that formation of a social contract (including individual right’s, freedoms, justice, brotherhood and decency) with sympathy and empathy, will ultimately define those who survive- through peaceful cooperation.  Ultimatly, it will be the id and basest aspects of the ego that will destroy those who are not fittest, and the natural selection process of human growth will eliminate those living with the most aggressive and selfish tendencies.  The second perspective, I believe, is more likely to be the accurate assessment through time.

The theories of Einstein and Darwin have been badly misconstrued by those who display the thirst for power.  They will ultimately self-destruct.  Einstein’s view of Relativity does not refer to ethics, but to man’s finite capacity for perception.  Morality is not purely a human affair of the weak, it is rather, as Aristotle and Newton noted, a method by which we move closer to God.  Those who maintain that the integrity of life must be held sacrosanct are those who are in fact, the fittest for survival.