Replies

However he does not encourage that anywhere

Of course he is, calling it idiocy to give alms to the poor, to cure the weak and so on is advocacy of eugenics. It goes quite well with his theory of survival of the fittest, he is just helping it along. Let's remember also his final paragraph in the Origins " Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. "

Of course he is, calling it idiocy to give alms to the poor, to cure the weak and so on is advocacy of eugenics.

He claims that ailing the weak and infirm allows them to reproduce and produce offspring that are not as fit as they would be had the infirm not been aided. That's not the same as calling it "idiocy". You took what (as I stated earlier) could have been at worst interpreted as advocacy of not helping the infirm survive to reproduce as advocacy of killing off the infirm -- something Darwin never advocated. In fact he suggested that a doctor refusing to give their best treatement to any patient simply because the patient was overall of lower constitution would be "evil":
"The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil."

In fact, if you read the chapter his conclusion is that "We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind". Hardly an advocacy of Eugenics.

It goes quite well with his theory of survival of the fittest, he is just helping it along.

No, he's explaining what happens when humans adapt to the point where the weaker can survive and reproduce. That, in his opinion, is a consequence of human ability. Evolution does not "require" that a deliberate intervention occurs to insure that only the fit survive, as you seemed to imply earlier.