Should humans be subject to "Social Darwinism," and how should this effect Universal Health Care?

Question

In the news these days, you hear a lot about the debate for a universal system of health care. This would provide health care for the citizenry at the expense of the taxpayers. While there are many pros and cons being tossed around to having a universal system, one philosophical question is at the forefront of my thoughts: Are humans subject to Social Darwinism?

Social Darwinism refers to various ideologies based on a concept that competition among all individuals, groups, nations, or ideas drives social evolution in human societies. In a similar way to animals, the argument is "survival of the fittest" (where "fittest" means "most fit to the environment"/"most able to reproduce") should apply to human society. If this is so, how would this effect universal health care? Should there be no public option because it violates Social Darwinism? Or, would Social Darwinism lead us to a public option in an effort to advance our species as a whole?

I want interesting and thought-provoking answers! I'll leave my various opinions out because frankly, I'm indecisive.

Answer 1

My Daughter had a double transplant. A few years later She had a baby. Without the medical care she would have died and my grandson would never have been born.



Any form of medical care could be called social darwinism. Unless you think that we should leave accident victims bleeding in the street because the fittest will survive I don't get the point. Where would you draw the line between no medical care for anyone and as much as anyone needed?



I don't know either but I would rather have the government drawing the line than greedy insurance companies.



Love and blessings Don

Answer 2

"Social Darwinism is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era in England, America, and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die." The other main idea is that the wealthy or "elite" should be allowed to dominate those of a lesser "class".



Your initial question seemed to be "Are humans subject to Social Darwinism?"



By the above definition the answer would seem to be "no" in today's society. Obviously, there are cultures that treat the weak and infirm differently, while animals will kill their own offspring if they are "deformed". There are laws that don't allow humans to do this, which again might prove that humans are not subject to "Social Darwinism".



There are also many countries that already provide universal health care to their citizens. One thought might be that universal care would level the playing field for all. Or maybe just for the middle class - wealthy people can afford good health care and the poor already have universal health care provided by states in the form of medicaid.......

Answer 3

If someone doesn't have insurance, and is seriously ill, they end up in the emergency room, the most expensive entrance into a health care system. If ANYONE shows up at an ER, they are required under law to provide them care. It isn't like if we change the rules that this care suddenly won't be provided. What is in contention is when the care is provided. For instance :When someone gets a leg injury, the sooner they are treated, the cheaper the cost, and the better the outcome. If they have no insurance, they can't go to a doctor, and the condition isn't serious enough to warrant a visit to the ER. Once it's turned gangrenous, then they can go to the ER, it's costs more, and the outcome won't be as good. The social Darwinism aspect would be more overt if ERs could refuse to provide care, but that will never happen. Well, maybe in Texas.

Answer 4

Darwin himself didn't argue the human social aspects of his theories but many people after him have twisted those ideas for their own purposes. Someone is going to bring it up, so I might as well mention that Hitler was one of those people. However, I'll dismiss him and other such radicals because they aren't pertinent to your question.



So what we are talking about is a natural evolution of society -- the world society. Given a long enough period of time for this evolution to "do its thing", it is conceivable that in the future there is going to be far less social diversity than today. In fact, if you look at just the past 100 years or so, it is hard to miss. I call it he "MacDonaldization" or "Hollywoodization" of the planet. Differences between peoples and cultures have greatly started homogenizing into blandness. Fewer lumps in your tomato soup, so to speak (I for one like the lumps).



One caveat to what I just said is that human understanding and behavior have changed precious little in at least the last several thousand years of civilization, so in one sense our behavior seems to resit refinement. Even if one society were to exterminate all others on the planet (which Darwin theorized could happen), it would not alter basic human nature within the surviving civilization which would eventually decay, devolve and split, and do what societies always seem to do due to human devisiveness.



Getting back to your question about health care affecting social Darwinist principles, I have to argue that ultimately there is no such thing as an unnatural act. We can attach ethics and morality to an act, but if something can occur then the law of random chance says that given a long enough interval it will occur, therefore it cannot be unnatural, it can only be assigned a degree of likelyhood.



Using that as my premise and definition regarding social evolution, I have to say that instituting social healthcare in the United States cannot violate the laws of "Social Darwinism". What will be will be, and at some point a "public option" has just as much chance as any other.

Answer 5

Social Darwinism is a political policy of the Republican Party, which advocates "tough luck" for the poor and sick.



Such a policy is morally bankrupt.



By the way Darwin NEVER advocated social darwinism but rather his name was stolen and used as a label to popularize a political conservative position by the rich and make them look socially acceptable. The concept of social darwinism originally came from Edmund Spencer, BEFORE Darwin published his Theory of Evolution.

Answer 6

Philosophically speaking, ultimately good things only get crystallized.