The anarchist, Peter Kropotkin, refuted the belief of constant competition among members of the same species and emphasized mutual aid. Heinrich von Treitschke's defense of Social Darwinism was a direct result of his view on the state and nation. He believed that only brave nations could stand the test of time, and argued that nations who did not showcase their power would eventually be preyed upon and parish. Treitschke makes this clear when he states, “History wears thoroughly masculine features; it is not for sentimental natures or for women. Only brave nations have a secure existence, a future, a development; weak and cowardly nations go to the wall, and rightly so.” (Treitschke, 11).
Darwin's theories had a huge impact on how the jews were treated and how war was seen. Darwin would soon have everyone following his idea of evolution. Charles Darwin would soon get the Nazi's to try and eliminate the weaker race based off his theory ‘Survival of the Fittest’ and a ‘Superior race’. Nazism is believed to have reached the extent of the holocaust due to wide spread and acceptance of social darwinism. The scientific and academic community would soon fall for the belief in Darwinism and be strong supports of the theories (Influence of Evolution).
The greatest impact on morality does not even come from the mind of the person making decisions, but from society. Nietzsche was interested in the individual. His book On The Genealogy of Morals was a vision for individuals. He glorifies the individual without the harm principle; the harm principle being the moral standard that constrains the actions of individuals to only being able to prevent harm to other individuals. For individuals and all humankind Nietzsche believes that we should not hold grudges, because it feeds into slave morality.
From the beginning of American history, the superiority of one race such as the whites how found many different ways to degrade other ethnic groups such as the blacks, Latin Americans, Asians and other minority groups. In order to strive to become a world power America seized the opportunity to racialize immigrants and foreign people in order to make themselves superior than the other races. It was important for America to demonize other foreigners in order to remain on top of the hierarchical standing. This hierarchical system allows America has control over foreign groups of people so it can maintain consistent domination amongst those people. Americans were instilled with fear of Anglo-Saxon anxiety that would change the “American culture” and believed that other cultures were not best suited for America.
Imperialism is often excused as a way of liberating people from tyrannical rule or by introducing the policies of a “better” way of life. It is based on the ground of a variety of causes running the gamut of economic pressures, greed, security, power, prestige, religion, and many other effective measures that can be taken given the circumstances. Arguments about the roots and virtue of imperialism can be put into four basic groups. The first is whether or not imperialism is economically beneficial. The second relates to the social aspect of imperialism and the natural desire to rule others.
In War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, Edwin Black discusses the root of the eugenics movement in the United States of America and how this ultimately influenced the horrifying actions taken by the Nazis in pursuit of the pure Aryan race. The first seed of perversion that led to these heinous undertakings is the misunderstanding of genes following their discovery in the late 19th century. The wealthy upper class took this discovery as justification for their racist sentiments; the poor are poor because of their bad genes. This misconstrued idea of bad genes in the gene pool created a fictitious problem that needed to be solved. If the poor and weak lower class exist as they do because of their insufficient genes, then weeding these genes out of society in general would surely further society as a whole.
By consenting to this authority, we give away the power over our own. In addition, true equality means that no man is superior to another. According to Locke the earth is the common property of all human being and someone in somewhere will have conflicting interests with another human being because of something and this will cause to enter in a state of war. The only protection from the state of war in John Locke's opinion is to enter into civil society and if there is equality between people there won't be any problem. So, we need equality again… In Locke's view, in the state of nature it is impossible to maintain an absolute peace.
Social Darwinism fueled imperialism by making imperialistic nations believe that their imperialistic ventures were a natural turn of events and not a cruel, opressionistic system of government. These imperialistic nations exploited other nations and cultures and their troops’ motivation was the glory of the nation and the eradication of the weaker races on earth. These soldiers believed in Social Darwinism. Also, nations were able to become imperialistic because of the support of their people. They “marketed” imperialism through Social Darwinism.
In such a condition, people are able to pursue their own interests (Locke 2005, 3). Due to the restrictions imposed by the Law of Nature, which focuses on the preservation of humanity as well as their independence and equality, it is a peaceful place. No one is ranked above another because each person is God’s creation. Since no one has the right to take away what God produced and therefore owns, killing another human being is unacceptable (Locke 2005, 4). Locke did not think humans are good or evil because he viewed the human mind as a tabula rasa, meaning it is blank at birth and completely shaped by its environment.
The philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke had very different ideas as to what type of government would best suit a society leaving the state of nature. The two not only differed in their perceptions of the state of nature, but they stemmed their philosophies from radically dissimilar pictures of human nature. Despite a few partial-similarities, Hobbes’ and Locke’s theories are mainly contrasting. When it comes to human nature, Locke believed that all men are altruistic and inherently good in the state of nature. Their reason stems from their morality and all men are born equal, unless God says otherwise.