Social Darwinism is an ethic born out of corruption which assumes that the fittest persons survive in society only when there is unfettered competition. Unfettered means anything goes including any sin that someone can get by with. The only thing you can do wrong, in the view of social Darwinists, is bypass the supposed competition by solving someone's problems—in other words, by being moral.

The thing wrong with social Darwinism is that it is based on sin and opposes morality. The assumed fittest are not the most constructive persons but the ones who get ahead through force and destructivity.

Compare it to morality. The basis of morality is that people get along with each other by helping each other solve their problems. The basis of social Darwinism is that people climb over the top of each other by harming people and creating their problems.

Do you have a few problems with your computer? It's because of social Darwinism. If someone were to solve your problems, you would be getting a free lunch, and the fittest would not be surviving. Therefore, a rule of the world is never solve someone else's problems. Make them earn it (like the rest of us had to do at the expense of our self-respect).

Another manifestation of social Darwinism is to never answer a question honestly. To give information is like giving away money, which is like welfare. Welfare supposedly created welfare queens, where the fittest do not survive.

The extreme of social Darwinism is to create problems as the solution to problems. By creating problems, someone else is forced to solve them. It's like a tree in a desert. It has to evolve an ability to resist heat and drying. That's where the palm tree came from. Don't tell us social Darwinism doesn't work.

Why not create problems for a social Darwinist? Philosophy is no relevance at that point. The fittest survive by destroying enemies.

What happens in the world when corrupt persons want something? They go begging for it. You scratch my back, and I'll scratch your back. Do the fittest survive by scratching each other's backs? That's what the ants and bees do. They work together and sacrifice themselves for the larger group. But that's not creating problems as the solution to problems. It's the opposite.

It's not just a fluid philosophy. It's a subconscious force in the minds of corrupt persons. Corruption create the subconscious assumption (sometimes quite conscious assumption) that the betterment of others is a detriment to self. Incompetence promotes this view.

There is also the acute awareness that if others make decisions they won't be aligned upon the motives of self. One corrupt person does not serve the interest of another. There are some schemes where they join forces, but pluralizing self does not change the dynamic of relating to non-self destructively.

This is why religion is called faith (in Christianity). Faith was emphasized by Christ, because sin destroys faith, and morality creates faith. Faith is expecting that what is good for one person is good for all. Corruption reverses that assumption and says what is good for anyone but self is bad for self.

It is not a logical philosophy that creates social Darwinism. It is the subconscious force which tells corrupt persons that the betterment of others is detrimental to themselves.

Faith