Thomas Huxley wasn’t a social Darwinist?

"Barry Arrington at 4 and 10: Busy here. Islamist attack." Thank you Ezra Levant. Was Brevek (sp?) a Christian attack? Or was it an attack by a very twisted individual? Acartia_bogart

It is still the case that neither Himmelfarb nor anyone else of note claims that "hardly anyone was a social Darwinist". Which was the main conclusion of the OP. Too much to hope for a retraction? Mark Frank

If hardly anyone was a social Darwinist, how come the ideas flourished so widely?

I think the vast majority of historians would argue that such ideas, in fact, didn't flourish. And the few espousing such ideas weren't doing so due for any reasons related to Darwinism. In fact, you yourself reported on this. goodusername

Barry Arrington at 4 and 10: Busy here. Islamist attack. My best guess is Huxley fell in love with Darwin's theory but it didn't accord with his own socialist doctrines. So he had to take a flyer on some stuff. He took a flyer on what wouldn't upset the working man. Jesus and Darwin. (BioLogos? Dunno.) The big "duty" is what you have to do so they won't shoot you. Or not. News

No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites. Lectures and Lay Sermons (1926) p.115 bevets

Sirius It looks from her biog that she's not only alive, but still in post. She must be a remarkable woman - and the 1959 book is still excellent. Jon Garvey

Barry #10

But is it not also true that if cosmic evolution is correct, cosmic evolution is all we’ve got, and if it cannot furnish a reason, nothing can?

What on earth makes you say that? Cosmic evolution is an explanation of how we got here. It doesn’t purport to furnish a reason for every belief and opinion we may hold including moral opinions. As I am sure you know countless philosophers from Plato and the Greeks through Kant to J.S. Mill and G.E. Moore have offered different reasons for moral beliefs – some objective, some subjective. Some of them link their justification back to a deity and/or a creation story – others do not. I have no idea what Huxley's own opinions were about this but there is absolutely no reason why they should be opinions that conflict with cosmic evolution. Why oversimplify things so? Mark Frank

It's hard to believe that G. Himmelfarb (otherwise known as Bea Kristol) wrote this impressive piece recently. She is now 92. I assumed it was a quote from her excellent book, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (1959) until I saw the quotes from Dawkins and E.O. Wilson. I now think that it is NOT from her earlier book. So can anyone shed some light? Sirius

MF, you are probably right. I remember that passage leaping from the page. My “what’s the point” is in a larger context. If that observation is correct, has Huxley not painted himself into a corner? He observes that cosmic evolution “is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before.” Surely that is correct. But is it not also true that if cosmic evolution is correct, cosmic evolution is all we’ve got, and if it cannot furnish a reason, nothing can? So if Huxley is correct, what is the point of talking about “morals” as if “morality” is some real objective category? For example, the article quotes Huxley talking about “duty.” Hogwash. If cosmic evolution is correct the concept of moral duty is empty, and like so many other Darwinists he is merely trying to kick morality out the front door only to smuggle it in through the back door. Barry Arrington

Any way, I doubt that Huxley was a Social Darwinist, he was just your garden variety Fabian Socialist. Edward

#7 Mark Frank If he was racist, that may be evidence that he was a Social Darwinist. Ed Edward

#1 DavidD This would appear to be case of Darwinian Debating Devices #15: “Chasing Irrelevant Tangents or ‘Threadjacking’” The thread was not about whether Huxley was a racist. Mark Frank

#5 - sorry it is a sentence not a paragraph Mark Frank

Barry Surely the point of it is summed up in this paragraph:

Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before.

Huxley recognised that the theory of evolution does not tell us what is right or wrong. Social Darwinism is a belief about what society ought to do and therefore, according to Huxley (and he is correct), cannot be derived from Darwinism. Mark Frank

News, I read that article last night. I did not see the point of it. Was it that Huxley tried to ground "ought" in "is" and failed? If so, that is not clear. Barry Arrington

If hardly anyone was a social Darwinist, how come the ideas flourished so widely?

As far as I can see noone has claimed that "hardly anyone was a social Darwinist" (obviously pointing out that various people were not is quite a different thing). Mark Frank

I didn't think Himmelfarb said that hardly anyone was a social Darwnist - only that Huxley wasn't. And as a critical biographer of Darwin, she's been making a decent case for it since at least 1959. Why should that be in doubt? Even in culture-wars America there are some people with nuanced views. Indeed, her biography of Darwin prompted me to write on the very subject 18 months ago here. Jon Garvey

Yes, Huxley was no doubt a racist prior to Darwin, but when Darwin and his theory of Evolution came along he no doubt felt a more intellectually fulfilled racist. DavidD