People like Francis Galton and Charles Darwin believed that taking the hereditary genes from strong, well minded, citizens would benefit the human race as a whole. Little did they know, they were slowly leading to the downfall of our nation. The word “Eugenics” was coined by Francis Galton. The term comes from the greek roots that mean “good” and“origin”. In other words, the word means “good birth”, which refers to
Social Darwinism is the result of applying Charles Darwin’s theories of evolution to human society, and one of the forefront Social Darwinists was none other than William Graham Sumner. In general, the concept of Social Darwinism has many pros such as “breeding” out weakness and disease, supporting the strong, and encouraging the development of a more advanced society. It also as many disadvantages, however, such as a smaller gene pool, hindering the weak, and controlling who gets to have children. Using the writings of both Darwin and Sumner, these pros and cons will be explored to prove that the negatives of Social Darwinism outweigh the positives. To begin, the first pro of Social Darwinism is the elimination of weakness and disease.
So, what did Jefferson mean when he wrote that, “all men are created equal?” Friedman analyses and concludes that in his article, the equality is “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” (266). The reason why all persons are created equal is that God created us and gave us intrinsic value that we speak of in terms of “right” language. For me, I agree with Friedman’s point that he mentions “All men are created equal”, but not “Equality before God” because I am not a Christian. We are all people that have the same human characters, which means we have the same privilege and rights as humans. No matter what religions we are, we still have the same basic rights and opportunities; no matter what status we are since we were born, it happens before the premise of justice, which is most
Individual outlook is essential for society because 2 different minds are greater than 100 equal minds. Individuality separates humans from primitives, individuality makes the world so much better, and individuality is what makes cultures. Imagine the entire world being the exact same everywhere, that would be boring. In Fahrenheit 451 that was the world they are living in, the government created their own definition of good and if anybody was not up to their standard or they disobeyed they were punished. The government expected everybody to be a mirror image to what they wanted.
This gave rise to belief that there was a “hierarchy” of races and that the Europeans were at the top of the hierarchy. Imperialists used genetics as a justified explanation to why white people were more superior to other races. Darwin believed that animal species was adapting and changing to environments in the process of evolution. Never did Darwin suggest that this was meant to apply to humans and their societies, cultures and races. However although the theory adapted by Herbert Spencer, and originally created by Darwin, contributed towards imperialism and colonisation it was not the sole cause of it.
James Michael Nichols invites readers of The Huffington Post to “Meet the First Openly Gay Miss America Contestant In History”. “Missouri Woman Is Miss America Pageant’s First openly Lesbian Contestant”, writes Christine Hauser for The New York Times. Monica Hesse of The Washington Post asks “What’s a nice lesbian like you doing at Miss America?” All of these titles share a common theme. They celebrate the sexuality of the latest Miss America Pageant winner, Erin O’Flaherty. It appears that the lesbian gay bisexual transsexual (LGBT) community is finally getting the recognition and acceptance it deserves, but what many journalists fail to realize is that the media coverage from this event unintentionally works against the development of true
Mainstream enlightenment thinkers tend to have assumptions linked to the innate knowledge of humans. A chiefly influential figure in the Mainstream Enlightenment for political philosophy and of social thought, Jean Jacques-Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” (1755), writes “We cannot desire or fear anything, except from the idea of it, or from the simple impulse of nature”. Nature was assumed to be the primal condition in which Man was innocent. It was assumed that Man was naturally innocent and “imbued with virtues”. That man in his natural state seeks to contribute to the common good.
He describes, “Again, every sort of virtue is a beauty of the soul, a truer beauty than those mentioned before..” (Plotinus 1) He then goes on to question how virtue is proportioned with the other parts of the soul. Plotinus believes that the primary beauty in bodies is something that we, the other people look at and notice at first glance, something that really grabs your attention. “..the soul speaks of it as if it understood it, recognizes and welcomes it and as itwere adapts itself to it. But when it encounters the ugly it shrinks back and rejects it and turns away from it and is out of tune and alienated from it.” (Plotinus 2) Yes, this completely makes sense! If I were to meet someone in a friendly manner at first, they may possess certain qualities that are eye-grabbing and that I deem “attractive” or “captivating” and I may feel some sort of connection almost immediately, whether it be friendly or something more, because of the two souls opening themselves up and welcoming themselves to one another and seeing “something akin to it or a trace of its kindred reality, is delighted and thrilled and returns to itself and remembers itself and its own possessions.” (Plotinus
The first ad tells women to be bold, different and confident. The second ad tells women what they should look like. Society has so many different beauty standards, that they are hard to keep up with. What society’s beauty standards do not explain, is how to deal with the constant contradiction. While one ad is telling you to be confident, the other is telling you how to look.
For instance, when you see a women who is gorgeous, but has a bad attitude you would not say she is ugly you would instead think she still has beauty. Yes, someone’s personality can change but the way you look cannot change the opinion of a person’s beauty. Someone’s beauty stays because a person have these features that cannot go away because that is something a person is born with. Also, when a person approaches another person the first thing someone does is look at someone’s physical traits. Such as someone’s eyes, hair, ethnicity, and body features because they are characteristics of what is described as beauty.