A few weeks ago, my fraternity big brother, some of his friends
and I were walking into a Seven-Eleven store near the San Jose
State campus. (SJSU students rely on Seven-Eleven for their daily
existence. I think you could walk three blocks in any direction,
from any point on campus, and you would stumble upon a 7-Eleven
store.
A few weeks ago, my fraternity big brother, some of his friends and I were walking into a Seven-Eleven store near the San Jose State campus. (SJSU students rely on Seven-Eleven for their daily existence. I think you could walk three blocks in any direction, from any point on campus, and you would stumble upon a 7-Eleven store.
It’s not unusual for there to be homeless people crowded near the store asking for change. This night, when I walked by, there was a man standing by the door who asked me if I could spare any money so he could buy food. Instinctively, I reached into my wallet and handed him $5.
As we all walked into the store, one of the guys with us turned to me and said, “Are you crazy? Why would you give him money? You’re just contributing to a problem.”
At first I was sure he was joking, but unfortunately, this boy was completely serious. He told me that by helping this homeless man to survive I was only hurting society, which needs him to die so the rest of us can be better off. He then proceeded to inform me of “social Darwinism” and “natural selection,” and its importance in society. I thus proceeded to become incredibly nauseated from all of it.
See, the theory, let’s just say Matt, (as to not embarrass the poor boy) believes in, is “survival of the fittest.” Meaning the fittest, who happen to make lots of money, are meant to dominate society, and the weakest, who happen to make no money, must fail and die.
“This is not only social policy but morally right,” according to Matt.
Morally right? To whom? Lucifer?
Social Darwinists believe that just as nature weeds out the unfit, an enlightened society ought to weed out the unfit and permit them to die off, so as not to weaken the rest of the “racial stock.” This idea then led to several other ideas and practices, such as a breeding program to make sure the unfit did not transmit their undesirable characteristics to another generation.
“Social Darwinism” is also what led to the idea that any attempt to provide welfare for the poor is a tragically misguided mistake. Feeding the poor only permits them to survive, which gives them an opportunity to transmit their “unfitness” to their children, where it will continue to be passed on, “polluting” society.
Okay, so maybe this theory makes sense – to someone who doesn’t have a heart beating in his body. Matt asked me “Don’t you have bills to pay? A car that needs to be fixed? Let your money go to that while you still have a chance. He lost his.”
Yeah, this homeless man is obviously worse off then I am, which is exactly why, when he asked me if I could spare any money so he could eat, it made a whole lot of sense for me to help him. I do have bills to pay and a car that doesn’t run, but I also have a job and a roof over my head, which is more then that man could dream of.
As for his lost chance at life, I don’t know if that’s really true. Things can always turn around, but not without help from people who are able to give it. Matt was ready to distrust this man and his intentions, stating that he would just use the five dollars to buy alcohol. Two minutes later, the homeless man was buying a giant burrito and a sandwich.
(As a side note, I was once rather infatuated with this Matt character. Let me assure you, I’m over him now).
The problem with this “social Darwinism” theory, other than being the most repulsive thing I’ve ever heard, is that it relies on the “naturalistic fallacy,” which consists of trying to derive an ‘ought’ statement from an ‘is’ statement.
A good example would be, just because you spilled hot coffee on yourself this morning does not logically imply that you ought to have spilled it on yourself. Social Darwinists try to extend natural processes into human social structures.
My fear is this: that there are several more people out there who really do believe that the less unfortunate should not be helped but instead left to die. It might make sense in some twisted political or economical way, but it is also beyond inhumane. If you really think the world will be better off if the weak and less fit die, then you’re living in a world where people have lost all compassion.
How is that a better world? We’re not a bunch of robots. We shouldn’t act like we don’t have souls. If you want to be concerned about society, start by caring about the well-being of everyone around you. I guarantee that will help society a lot more than standing around, waiting for all the weak to die.
Nothing can be accomplished in this world if the thought of caring and giving to those less fortunate than you is seen as a “bad” thing. All I can do is hope that Matt and his fellow “social Darwinists” will soon see that we are all human and all deserve an equal chance at life and survival, no matter how much money we make.
Chrissy Bryant is freshman at San Jose State University. She writes A College View about local college life and things that catch her fancy. Contact Chrissy at editormh@morgan hilltimes.com
