Köse 1

Zeynep Didem Köse

David Christopher Butcher

ENG 102-47

11 December 2022

An Ethical Analysis of Social Darwinism and Nazism

Social Darwinism and “Nazism” is justified on the grounds that it “weeds-out”

undesirable genes from our populations!

Thesis: When Social Darwinism and Nazism are examined through ethics and

morality, it can be seen that the way in which they operate are fundamentally against

egalitarianism, and therefore, human rights.

 Köse 2

For, really now, can we imagine anyone’s saying seriously: "There must be

something about tomatoes, for I have a horror of eating them?"

- Jean-Paul Sartre

Governmental emphasis on what to do with other races has long been a problem.

Ideologies such as Social Darwinism and Nazism is what came forth, and may be the best

known of to respond to the issue. Social Darwinism is the “enterprise or ideology, founded in

the nineteenth century, which holds social evolution to depend upon the operation of the law

of natural selection of favorable heritable variants” (Halliday 389). Contrary to this very

literal definition, Social Darwinism becomes an ideology for the free market implementing

state, and is against the idea of economic interventionism. Nazism, on the other hand, is

political and economic doctrines to achieve a totalitarian government that gives the dominant

authority to the believed to be superior Germanic groups (“Nazism”). It is obvious that both

of these concepts are ‘bad things’. Social Darwinism and Nazism can never be justified just

because it weeds out bad genes. The sentence itself falsely implies that there is such a ‘bad

gene’ to be discarded of. When Social Darwinism and Nazism are examined through ethics

and morality, it can be seen that the way in which they operate are fundamentally against

egalitarianism, and therefore, human rights. I aim to give brief information and reasoning

behind both Social Darwinism and Nazism, then move on to the specific arguments from

Nietzsche and Heidegger that are in contrast to the argument. From there on, I will try to

answer the question: ‘But, why is it immoral?’ with notions from a multitude of philosophers.

Lastly, I mean to introduce the ideas of Petr Kropotkin and the concept of “mutual aid” as an

exact opposite to Social Darwinism and the concept of ‘survival of the fittest’.

Social Darwinism and Nazism have a collection of false reasoning behind them,

making them improbable to logically conceive. Darwinist though of evolution is quite easy to

grasp, as it is as basic as; an entity that struggles to survive less, will thrive. On the other
 Köse 3

hand, the implications that Darwin’s evolutionary theories could be plausible to humans are

not valid. “Since Darwin meant pigeons not people in referring to struggle, all applications to

human society were nonsense” (Bannister 15). His work was on animals not intelligent and

complex organisms, like mankind.

Herbert Spencer, who is the visionary of Social Darwinism and the originator of the

phrase ‘survival of the fittest’, claimed “now that the truth [of natural selection] is

recognized by most cultivated people … now more than ever, in the history of the

world, are they doing all they can to further the survival of the unfittest”.

Yet again, the thought that there would be unfit people is baseless. The human condition is

much more convoluted and sophisticated than, say, a bird’s is. Spencer also believed in

Lamarckism, which argues that “the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of

any organ … are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise” (Lamarck).

So, a blacksmith’s son would inherit his strong muscles, and also be great a blacksmith. This

leads to the idea of ‘eugenics’ and hence forth a united totalitarian power. Politically

speaking, “Darwinism offered … the indefinite possibilities which seemed to lie in the

evolution of man out of animal life and which started the new ‘science’ of ‘eugenics’”

(Arendt). Therefore, the Social Darwinist understanding precipitated a false agent for

ideologies like Nazism. “Without Darwinism … neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would

have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their

collaborators that one of the world’s greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy”

(Weikart). One might therefore assume that, Social Darwinism further stimulated the uprising

of Nazism.

Not only Darwinism, but ideas from other intellectuals effected the erection of

Nazism. Ideas like Nietzsche’s übermensch and Heidegger’s involvement in the National

Socialist Party, not only forms a base for racism and Nazism, it also gives such hazardous
 Köse 4

ideologies false justifications. The ‘übermensch’ is “an ideal superior man who, according to

Nietzsche, forgoes transient pleasure, exercises creative power, lives at a level of experience

beyond standards of good and evil, and is the goal of human evolution” (“Superman” def. 2).

This idea of an evolutionary superior man undoubtedly influenced Nazi’s idea of their

description of a biologically superior Aryan race. “An image of Nietzsche created by a

generation of right-wing thinkers in the inter-war period” (Whyte 174) has occurred during

Nazi’s reign. Though, Nietzsche might not have been a Nazi, it cannot be dismissed that his

ideas were claimed and actively used by the Nazis. Alfred Baeumler, who was a prominent

Nazi ideologue, helped to “make Nietzsche serviceable for National Socialism” (Whyte 175).

Then, it can be seen that Nietzsche’s idea of an evolutionarily and biologically advanced men

gave breeding ground to the Nazi’s rule and dominion. Another, philosopher who was

involved in the Nazi ideology is Heidegger. He, unlike Nietzsche, was actually a National

Socialist Party member. Heidegger’s inclusion in the Nazi Party doesn’t end with him just

being present. “Jews, he writes, are “uprooted from Being-in-the World”—that is, incapable

of authentically caring and knowing” (Rothman). His anti-sematic ideas harmed society itself,

him being seen as an acclaimed intellectual. From this, it can be determined that, objectives,

such as Heidegger’s, helped salvage the idea of Nazism from being radicalized.

Social Darwinism and Nazism see certain people as worthy of more, inherently this

idea is faulty because, no men can be superior to another. For instance, on the issue of Native

Americans, Locke did not claim the “empirical theory of racial inferiority,” but said “even

‘savages’ are born free and equal, with a full complement of natural rights” (Squadrito 102

cites Locke). Even in a time that most Americans saw natives as ‘savages’, Locke saw that all

humans were on the same ground. No one has higher or lower status because of their

birthplace.
 Köse 5

In his masterwork, The Second Treatise of Government, he wrote, “men being … by

nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and

subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent” (Locke).

The idea of race itself brings about problems. The existence of segregation of races prompts

the idea of class, where one is free and one is not. For what it is worth, “race is, politically

speaking, not the beginning of humanity but its end, not the origin of people but their decay,

not the natural birth of man but his unnatural death” (Arendt). From this, it can be interpreted

that, the elimination of race in people’s eyes must be demolished as to achieve an all equal

society. George Orwell wrote in his book, The Road to Wigan Pier, “All nationalistic

distinctions … are entirely spurious, but they are important so long as people believe in

them”. Then, the deduction to be reached can be that, Social Darwinism and Nazism stem

from racist and nationalist inclinations that are so deeply rooted to society itself.

The idea of a society that lives harmoniously with each other using mutual aid, might

well be the answer for the false interpretations of Darwin’s evolutionary theories. Kropotkin

writes, “Don’t compete! — competition is always injurious to the species, and you have

plenty of resources to avoid it” (48). He again and again states that for a prosperous life, the

humankind is bound to live together as one. He believed in an anarcho communist society.

He wrote, “the mutual-aid tendency in man has so remote an origin, and is so deeply

interwoven with all the past evolution of the human race, that it has been maintained

by mankind up to the present time, notwithstanding all vicissitudes of history”

(Kropotkin).

Kropotkin’s ideals, much like Herbert Spencer’s, are based upon the works of Charles

Darwin. He simply replaces the phrase ‘struggle for life’ with ‘mutual aid’. Nonetheless,

Kropotkin makes the same mistake Herbert Spencer makes; he tries to implement Darwinian
 Köse 6

rhetoric to his own. “In Kropotkin’s book, animals … are further anthropomorphized by the

telling of micro-stories that provide a dynamic illustration of how mutual aid works among

them” (Nicolosi 152). This time the inaccuracy might be more of a positive employment of

the thought, yet, it is a fallacy, still. From a personal perspective, another point Kropotkin

misses, is that of individualism. It is apparent that, he does not recognize the individual while

looking at mankind, rather he sees it as a herd or a flock. Individualism, though, is the most

crucial part of what makes human, human.

Where Kropotkin –and previously Locke– believed in men being born free and good

by nature, Sartre wrote, “if the Jew did not exist, the anti‐Semite would invent him” (8). So

then, where does this lead us in terms of the human condition? Kant argues, human nature is

neither bad or good. His “moral philosophy is … based on the idea of autonomy” (Rohlf).

Thus, the human nature depends upon the individual’s self-rule and independence.

“Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage” (Kant), he wrote. In societies,

which are totalitarian, such as the Nazi Germany, the freedom to self-govern are taken away.

Similarly, Sartre claimed “what men have in common is not a ‘nature’ but a

condition,” a collection of boundaries and constraints, like “the inevitability of death,

the necessity of working for a living, of living in a world already inhabited by other

men” (42).

Then, it is clear that nature of men does not come to a black or white conclusion, but a gray

one. “Most people … live under the illusion that they follow their own ideas and inclinations,

that they are individualists, … that it just happens that their ideas are the same as those of the

majority” (Fromm). That’s why, related to Nazism or Social Darwinism, the self

determination of the individual is what gives these ideologies power.

 Köse 7

To sum up, Social Darwinism and Nazism’s moral, as well as its scientific,

backgrounds are derived from misinterpretations and faulty argumentations based on Darwin

or Nietzsche’s principles. Whereas, Locke and Kropotkin believed that humankind can live

harmoniously as one, and had equal rights and freedom from birth. Both Social Darwinism

and Kropotkin’s ‘mutual aid’ lacked the acknowledgement that humans are not animals and

that they are individuals. Yet, without individual freedom, an absence of judgement will

continue to roam, stemming detrimental ideologies such as Nazism. At last, Kant and Sartre

both wrote about how autonomy is the answer to both of the questions of: ‘What is the human

nature?’ and ‘How to achieve the idealized society?’. Therefore, without autonomy and

individual freedom, dogmas that are brought about with Nazism or Social Darwinism are

bound re-emerge continuously. So then, it is clear that Nazism and Social Darwinism belong

to primitive societal thoughts and are not morally acceptable.

 Köse 8

Bibliography

Arendt, Hannah. “The Origins of Totalitarianism.” Introduction by Samantha Power,

Schocken, 2004. Bowker, https://doi.org/10.1604/9780805242256.

Bannister, Robert C. Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social

Thought. Temple University Press, 2008.

Fromm, Erich. The Art of Loving. Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2019. Bowker,

https://doi.org/10.1604/9780061129735.

Halliday, R. J. “Social Darwinism: A Definition.” Victorian Studies, vol. 14, no. 4, 1971, pp.

389–405. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3825958. Accessed 11 Dec. 2022.

Kant, Immanuel. “An Answer to the Question.” “What Is Enlightenment?,” Penguin UK,

2009.

Kropotkin, Peter. “Mutual Aid.” A Factor of Evolution, Black Rose Books, 1989.

Lamarck, Jean Baptiste. “Zoological Philosophy.” An Exposition with Regard to the Natural

History of Animals, translated by Hugh Elliot. Bowker,

https://doi.org/10.1604/9780404193539.

Locke, John. “The Second Treatise of Government.” Essay Concerning the True Original

Extent and End of Civil Government, edited by C. B. Macpherson, Hackett Pub. Co., 1980,

https://doi.org/10.1604/9780915144938.

“Nazism, N.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/Nazism. Accessed 11 Dec. 2022.

 Köse 9

Nicolosi, Riccardo. “The Darwinian Rhetoric of Science in Petr Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid. A

Factor of Evolution (1902).” Berichte Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, vol. 43, no. 1, Wiley,

Feb. 2020, pp. 141–59. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1002/bewi.201900023.

Orwell, George. The Road to Wigan Pier. Mariner Books, 1972. Bowker,

https://doi.org/10.1604/9780156767507.

Rohlf, Michael. “Immanuel Kant.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 28 July 2020,

plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#Fre.

Rothman, Joshua. “Is Heidegger Contaminated by Nazism?” The New Yorker, 28 Apr. 2014,

www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/is-heidegger-contaminated-by-nazism.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. “Anti-Semite and Jew.” An Exploration of the Etiology of Hate, Schocken,

1995. Bowker, https://doi.org/10.1604/9780805210477.

Spencer, Herbert. “Social Statics.” Conditions Essential to Human Happiness Specified and

the First of Them Developed, 1995. Bowker, https://doi.org/10.1604/9780911312331.

“Superman, N.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 2022,

https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=superman. Accessed 11 Dec. 2022.

Squadrito, Kathy. “Philosophers on Race.” Locke and the American Indian, Wiley-Blackwell,

2002, pp. 101–24. https://doi.org/10.1604/9780631222262.

Weikart, Richard. “From Darwin to Hitler.” Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in

Germany, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Bowker, https://doi.org/10.1604/9781403965028.

Whyte, Max. “The Uses and Abuses of Nietzsche in the Third Reich: Alfred Baeumler’s

‘Heroic Realism.’” Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 43, no. 2, SAGE Publications, Apr.

2008, pp. 171–94. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1177/0022009408089028.