The Eugenics Movement began when Francis Galton wanted to explore if society and culture in a country would excel if the powerful, distinguished genes were to be passed down. Through his theories, he wanted to prove that the human race can be more intelligent and stronger. The overall goal was for those genes to be passed down through generations overtime. Francis Galton was half cousins with Charles
In 19th century, Darwin’s theory was criticized thought that he had wrong interpretation. In 20th century, it has proven that he is correct. Darwin came to understand that any population consists of individuals that are all slightly different from one another. Those individuals with a variation that gives them an advantage in staying alive long enough to successfully reproduce are the ones that pass on their traits more frequently to the next generation. Scientific historian Ronald L. Numbers thinks that the publication of
They promoted competition because they believed that some people, nations, or races were better fit to survive. These theories gave birth too many ideas that we know today such as imperialism, racism, capitalism, and discrimination. Though Social Darwinism is linked to Charles Darwin, Darwin did not address human evolution specifically in
Natural selection and Social Darwinism Darwin’s theory of natural selection indicates that there are competitions for survival between animals, and he once applied this theory about competition into human society in his book The descent of man. For this reason, Darwin was sort of one of the founders of Social Darwinism. Nevertheless, he didn’t overemphasize the competition between the same spices, natural selection doesn’t equal to competition.  “The farther of Social Darwinism” is the man called Herbert Spencer, he interpreted the “natural selection” as “survival of the fittest”. People made different interpretations on Social Darwinism and use it on their own purposes.
37) from Machiavelli’s statement in chapter eighteen. One could state that princes lie not for the benefit of society, but for the benefit of himself, as a mechanism of self-preservation or self gain. However, in the Prince, Machiavelli argues that public harmony and benefit will be achieved by the prince gaining total power over the state, because this will ensure political stability. In this society today, where democracy and distribution of power is placed on a pedestal, people cringe at the idea of one individual with absolute control over the state. They claim that placing total political power in one individual restricts freedom and leads to corruption.
Objectivism places great importance on the individual and says that most acts performed for your own benefit would be ethically correct, to that end it stresses that man must have a form of government that allows for individual liberties as well as an economic system that rewards individual achievements. I agree completely here when talking about the idea of politics respecting the rights of the individual and allowing you to pursue your own passions. My sticking point with this objectivist ideal is that any form of charity that involves self-sacrifice is unethical. Objectivism would tell me that giving money to someone that is going through a hard time would be wrong because I could be using that money to better myself. I on the other hand believe the Bible is clear in several places about the idea of charity for example in 1 John chapter 3 verse 17 the Bible reads “But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?”
In order to restore freedom to mankind, Rousseau suggests there has to be a social contract. The establishment of a social contract in the society requires mankind to wilfully let a political entity govern him and his private property. This kind of submission is called the general will and it aims to govern mankind by allowing free and equal co-existence. Rousseau’s argument is based on the single notion that mankind is generally good by nature, but made evil by the society. However, his argument is not plausible since it does not explain how a society which he claims to be evil is composed of good mankind.
Popper 's work on political philosophy is also of great importance. In his work he not only claimed that liberal and open society is the best form society but also justified his claim to a major extent. Popper in his work argued against great philosophers such as Marx, Hegel and Plato. Popper argued that the growth of human knowledge partly causes the evolution of human history. IN his quote "no society can predict its own future states of knowledge" he factual out a justification to Marx concept of 'historicism '.
Machiavelli’s realistic outlook causes him to emphasize that it is better to maintain power through fear, rather than compassion. Despite this, he notes that a ruler must avoid his people hating him. A hated ruler possesses no power since the people hold the power. Therefore, a ruler can be miserly, unfaithful, and ruthless, but they must appear to be the opposite. Machiavelli concludes that it is important for a ruler to balance his reputation and his actions, which I agree with, however others may argue that a ruler can posses both qualities.
There would have not been any explanation which explained how we share similarities with other hominids. This shows how we have diverged from one common ancestor. Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, has enabled us to find how we all have come from one common ancestor. His theory of natural selection is a process which allows genetically stronger individuals; individuals who are best suited for the environment survive and pass down their favored characteristics