Final answer:
Arguments against social Darwinism challenge its basis in misapplying biological concepts to societal contexts, its justification of social inequalities, and its pseudoscientific underpinnings. Critics argue that the ideology dismisses the influence of social and economic factors on individual success and has been used to support racism and justify the status quo in power structures.
Step-by-step explanation:
Arguments against social Darwinism draw upon the notion that it misapplies biological evolutionary concepts to social contexts, leading to unfounded assertions about the deservingness of wealth or poverty based on presumed biological traits. The critique of social Darwinism could encompass the idea that biological evolution and social evolution are fundamentally different, challenging the notion that societal advancement follows the same natural selection principles seen in species evolution.
Furthermore, social Darwinism has been criticized for justifying social inequalities by suggesting that those who are wealthy and influential have achieved their status purely through superior traits, ignoring factors like opportunity and social support. This ideological framework has often been used to rationalize the status quo of power structures rather than acknowledging the complex interplay of social, economic, and environmental factors that contribute to an individual's success or failure.
Herbert Spencer's application of "survival of the fittest" to human societies, and the subsequent use of social Darwinism to justify colonialism, class distinctions, and racism, have faced significant opposition and critique for their pseudoscientific underpinnings and ethical implications. Ultimately, as social consciousness has evolved, social Darwinism's interpretation of "fitness" in a societal context has been largely discredited, especially as more egalitarian and humanistic views have taken root.