More handpicked essays just for you.
Social darwinism by sumner
Was charles sumner a social darwinist
William graham sumner social darwinism during the gilded age
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
From the perch of their age, William Graham Sumner and Henry George shared the same view of the world. There can hardly be any dispute that what these men saw before them was a great division between the rich and poor in regards to their respective livelihoods. Based on the sources of their writings they shared this view of the world, but they differed in their worldviews. While their opinions regarding the inequality differ substantially, the general form of their arguments is similar. At the heart of each lies a fundamental view of nature, vice, and liberty. It is each of these they believe are the reasons for the current state of their world. By examining each of these points a better understanding of these two men’s ideologies can be attained. …show more content…
Sumner views life through the lens of Social Darwinism, a sociological perspective inspired by the most modern science of this day: the works of Charles Darwin. This perspective is evidenced by the continued use of the famous phrase “survival of the fittest”. As a consequence of this naturalistic basis, Mr. Sumner asserts life is inherently a struggle, a competition for limited resources. Those who should win this competition and attain wealth, he says of course, are the “fittest” men of society as well as their wife and children, or his “dependents” as he calls them. Mr. George, in stark contrast of this, is an egalitarian who proudly quotes the Declaration of Independence’s famous invocation of mankind’s unalienable rights. Additionally, he speaks of his belief in the “natural law… of fraternity and cooperation” (Foner, 102). The sum of these natural outlooks, held by Mr. George, paints a picture of a world of equals, interconnected and reliant on one another. To Henry George, there should be a sense of community in society, not the sort of individualism that seems to emanate from Sumner’s
...l reformer who in 1885 gave a speech known as “An Analysis on the Crime of Poverty.” George explains that it is not a crime to be poor, but poverty is a crime. Meaning, those who are considered to be living in poverty is a victim of crime that either themselves or those around them are responsible for. George also explains how poverty is everywhere. It is something that all nations will be familiar with. It is a time of suffering because of unjust distribution and possession of land. Henry George makes it clear to society that individuals can own something that no man created. He provides a reasoning for those who are in poverty, and explains that man did not create land, therefore you can own it if your heart desires. His resolution on poverty was to put a stop to the unjust distribution of money from the land that man didn’t even create, so it can return equality.
Sumner, William Graham. What Social Classes Owe to Each Other. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1883.
Diamond discusses the importance of ideology and the ways in which they “pave road” for society to appropriately organize upon. Diamond specifically outlines the ways in which changing an ideology can alter society in Chapter 14, From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy, as society evolves through the spread of an ideology. Both Diamond and Hunt agree about the importance of ideology in society, but their standpoints are critically different in their perspectives. Diamond focuses on other aspects just as well, such as immunity to germs or resource production, whereas Hunt specifically focuses on the ways in which changes in ideology impact the development of capitalism. Thus, both Hunt and Diamond have different thought’s on economic history, but converge in the ideal of signifying ideological
However, individuals such as Henry Comstock and Andrew Carnegie believed that individuals who had power should only care for the poor only when the rich felt like it was appropriate to step in and “save” the day. On the other hand, individuals
After reading Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origins of Inequality, it is imperative that one is not impressed by the blue ribbon attached to this faulty account of society’s development and flaws. While he does make valid points in regards to man’s nature and his progression into the world of civilization, Rousseau’s words can mislead one into seeing progress as a force to be avoided, which would be a shame.
John Rawls divided up his theory into four distinct parts; the first part consisted of his belief of primary goods, next is the formation of principles of justice, third is the institutionalization of society, and finally the last part of his theory is the actual workings within society . The general concept of Rawls’s theory is, “all primary goods must be distributed equally unless the unequal distribution of any of these goods is to the advantage of the least favored” . In order to analyze this correctly Rawls’ terms must be defined; according to Rawls a primary good are “things that every rational man is presumed to want. Goods normally have use regardless of a person’s rational plan to life is” . Some examples of a primary good are: basic rights, opportunity, and income to name a few. With the unders...
In the documents titled, William Graham Sumner on Social Darwinism and Andrew Carnegie Explains the Gospel of Wealth, Sumner and Carnegie both analyze their perspective on the idea on “social darwinism.” To begin with, both documents argue differently about wealth, poverty and their consequences. Sumner is a supporter of social darwinism. In the aspects of wealth and poverty he believes that the wealthy are those with more capital and rewards from nature, while the poor are “those who have inherited disease and depraved appetites, or have been brought up in vice and ignorance, or have themselves yielded to vice, extravagance, idleness, and imprudence” (Sumner, 36). The consequences of Sumner’s views on wealth and poverty is that they both contribute
Though money may not be the root of all evil, it certainly contributes to inequalities between those on opposite ends of the wealth distribution map. Upward mobility becomes difficult for those whose income does not match that of the wealthy because of the lack of opportunities provided to the people who are in the working class (Marx). Unfortunately, this repetitive cycle of wealth inequality draws parallels with the racial inequalities that are seen today. Statistically, people of color and women collect less revenue than white men, who are less restricted in their mobility, in America (Rowe). According to Karl Marx, money can buy anything from education to beauty, due to the fact that money is valued more than the lives of those who do
In Locke’s state of nature, there was never a need to assume that one must equally divide possessions. Locke’s notion of of the right to property was crucial because it was held on the same accord as rights such as life and liberty respectively. By doing so, property becomes subjected to the whims of political processes just as any similar right would require. This means that Locke was able to justify inequalities in property through the need of political regulation for property. There was also a drastic imbalance in Locke’s civil society due to the two classes that unlimited accumulation of property created. Locke suggested that everyone is a member of society and yet only those who owned property could fully participate in society. Those who did not own property were unable to fully participate, because it could give them the opportunity to use their newfound legitimate power to equalize property ownership, going against Locke’s key belief of unlimited accumulation. In Locke’s views, due to the overwhelming abundance of property, there was never a need for a method to ensure impartiality. The inequality stems from Locke’s inability to realize the discrepancy would become more and more apparent as men used money to expand their possessions. This structure established two different types of class within society, the upper echelon citizens who share in the sovereign power and the second class citizens
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
In the United States, the gap between the rich and the poor has been substantially increasing over the years. This growth between the rich and poor illustrates the wealth inequality between the social classes in our nation. Although it is impractical to precisely measure the morality of wealth inequality, we can use philosophical thought to determine what makes a political and economic system just. By analyzing the theories of political philosophers, Robert Nozick and John Rawls, it is clear that wealth inequality is morally justified, as long as equal opportunity and concern for justice among a society is provided under certain conditions.
While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately, negates freedom. How each philosopher interprets this manifestation of servitude in civil society reveals the intrinsic problems of liberty in civil society. Marx and Rousseau come to a similar conclusion on what is to be done to undo the fetters that society has brought upon humankind but their methods differ when deciding how the shackles should be broken. To understand how these two men’s views vary and fit together it must first be established what they mean by “freedom”.
Throughout the existence of man debates over property and inequality have always existed. Man has been trying to reach the perfect state of society for as long as they have existed. John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King are three great examples of men who broke down the basics of how property and inequality are related. Each historical figure has their own distinct view on the situation. Some views are similar while others vary greatly. These philosophers and seekers of peace and equality make many great arguments as to how equality and property can impact man and society. Equality and property go hand in hand in creating an equal society. Each authors opinion has its own factors that create a mindset to support that opinion. In this paper we will discuss the writings of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King Jr. and the factors that influenced their opinions on inequality and property.
In his Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau hypothesizes the natural state of man to understand where inequality commenced. To analyze the nature of man, Rousseau “strip[ped] that being, thus constituted, of all the supernatural gifts he could have received, and of all the artificial faculties he could have acquired only through a lengthy process,” so that all that was left was man without any knowledge or understanding of society or the precursors that led to it (Rousseau 47). In doing so, Rousseau saw that man was not cunning and devious as he is in society today, but rather an “animal less strong than some, less agile than others, but all in all, the most advantageously organized of all” (47). Rousseau finds that man leads a simple life in the sense that “the only goods he knows in the un...
Roback, Jennifer. "The Economic Thought of George Orwell." The American Economic Review 75 (1985): 127-32. JSTOR. American Economic Association. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.