Reform darwinism

Answer:

Social Darwinism basically says that, people who are unable to defend themselves should be left behind from everyone else. An example of this would be the Holocaust. The Nazi’s believed that they were better than the Jews and due to this, they believed that the Jews deserved to die. ReformDarwinism on the other hand, believed that people were people and it said that people should just help people no matter what. We see ReformDarwinism in everyday life such as babies and the elderly. Babies don’t do anything for the beginning of their lives, but we feed and take care of them anyways, same as the elderly; even though people get old and can’t contribute as much as they used to, we still take care of them and treat them as people because that is what they are. Something both Social and ReformDarwinism have in common is that they are still both seen today.

Explanation:

Social Darwinism was a term created in the late 19thcentury to describe the pseudo-scientific idea that humans, like the rest of the animal kingdom, compete in a struggle for existence in which "natural selection" results in the "survival of the fittest".Social Darwinism misuses the theories of evolution developed by British naturalist Charles Darwin. Reform Darwinism however, advocated for a stronger role for government and the introduction of various social policies. Reform Darwinism argued that human beings need new ideas and institutions as they adapt to changing conditions. However, the term has negative implications for most people because they consider it is a rejection of compassion, equality, and social responsibility. I believe the stigma of the term is justified as Social Darwinism led mostly to social conservatism and not so much social reform. This ideology introduced a new train of thought that forever changed Western politics. This ideology is often used to rationalize poverty, racism, imperialism, capitalism, ableism, sexism, and other forms of oppression. It is based entirely on justifying existing power structures due to some prior law of nature. Most arguments

within this form of Social Darwinism argues that governments should not interfere with human competition by attempting to regulate the economy or cure social ills such as poverty and institutionalized oppression. Instead, they advocate "laissez-faire" political and economic systems that favor competition and self-interest in social and business affairs with no regard for the public. More extreme versions of SocialDarwinism, such as eugenics, advocate for the right genocide of the "inferior". Within modern times, we see more of the first version of Social Darwinism, through "Neo-liberalism"