Natural selection and the direct inheritance of learned connections were the approaches used by Darwin and Spencer to explain human mental and moral progress. On the other hand, each stressed the causal link about which they were most enamored. Natural selection is no longer an analytical judgment under Spencer’s “survival of the fittest” rubric: survival is the criteria of suitability, while suitability is the causative condition for survival (Ritzer, 2011). However, Darwin’s original view, which supplied natural selection with a function, namely its creative effect, became more acceptable than Spencer’s negative function of elimination.
Unlike Darwin, Spencer thought that learned traits like economy and morality could be passed down through the generations. Spencer was a staunch opponent of any legislation that aided workers, the poor, or people he considered genetically vulnerable (Ritzer, 2011). Nature is considered a force for good in Spencer’s concept of evolution, directing the development of individuals and society, and competition lets the strong flourish by removing the weak. Spencer advocated for the premise that those who survive a fight are not just the fittest but also the morally best.
The survival of the fittest was a simply descriptive observation of the evolutionary processes of Darwin. The organisms with the best fitness or adaptability have the best chances of surviving and so reproducing. In essence, this is a selection process, but it happens spontaneously without the intervention of a selection agent, thus the term natural selection (Ritzer, 2011). After all, unlike Spencer, who might be termed a philosopher, Darwin was essentially a scientist who valued factual information. Darwin coined the phrase “natural selection” to describe the mechanism of evolution, and Spencer went on to derive a whole moral prescription for the future from it.
Reference
Ritzer, G. (2011). Classical Sociological Theory, (6th Ed). Boston: McGraw Hill.