Final answer:
Mahan's argument is most similar to the principle of Social Darwinism, a philosophy adopted by industrialists like Carnegie to justify the concentration of wealth, though Carnegie’s view included a philanthropic responsibility.
Step-by-step explanation:
Mahan's argument best parallels the philosophical argument of Social Darwinism used to defend the great wealth and power of the corporate industrialists during this time period. Social Darwinism, a theory promulgated by Herbert Spencer and borrowed by industrialists like Carnegie, posited that, much like in biological evolution, only the fittest would survive and succeed in a capitalist society.
This philosophy was employed by titans of industry to justify their amassed wealth and business practices, which often created stark disparities between the rich and the poor. On the other hand, Andrew Carnegie, in his The Gospel of Wealth, adds a philanthropic twist to this perspective, suggesting that the wealthy have a moral obligation to use their fortunes to improve society -- a point of view that differentiated him somewhat from his peers.