[Dimensio]

Hitler was a social darwinist. And, contrary to those who think that social darwinism is against regular darwinism, here is what Charles Darwin says:

The difference is that "social darwinism" is a proactive approach, based upon the faulty notion that a scientific theory prescribes action. Darwin was simply speaking of what he saw as the natural consequences of "savage" versus "civilized".

Darwin was speaking of what happens based upon given conditions, but he wasn't suggesting any particular plan of action (and, in fact, in his writings he also speculated on some 'solutions' to prevent the weak from propigating, but said that they were not viable because they were immoral).

[PatrickHenry]

The difference is that "social darwinism" is a proactive approach, based upon the faulty notion that a scientific theory prescribes action.

I suppose "social Newtonism" would require its followers to throw people out of windows, in obedience to the law of gravity.

[johnnyb_61820]

"The difference is that "social darwinism" is a proactive approach, based upon the faulty notion that a scientific theory prescribes action."

Somewhat yes and somewhat no. Scientific theory should be actionable, but can only be actionable given certain premises. What I was pointing out was that social darwinism is not contrary to darwinist principles. It may use them differently than someone with different assumptions, but it isn't contrary.

For example, if I follow the theory that ice is cold, and I want to be cold, it is not misusing the theory of ice to use it to get cold. Likewise, if evolution says that the best way to preserve the species is by removing the "lesser" ones from the procreative population, and my moral code is based on survival of the species (as is most materialistic philosophies), then Hitler-esque tactics would be an appropriate use of the theory.

Although unsourced, Stalin was thought to have said that killing masses of people was equivalent to mowing the lawn.