What is the difference between the divine right of Kings and social Darwinism?
You must have had a very bad day. Unfortunately I am going to make your day even worse. Social Darwinism is an old theory that was discredited long ago. Many years ago, some goofy Sociologists attempted to combine Sociology with the theory of Darwin and created Social Darwinism, a theory which has since been thoroughly discredited. Social Darwinism had a number of major flaws. One of the most serious flaws of Social Darwinism was the belief that traits could be acquired from the environment by the Parents and inherited genetically by the offspring. This was in direct conflict with the Theory of Charles Darwin. The Sociologists who created what was called Social Darwinism were not Scientists themselves and misunderstood and misapplied the Theories of Charles Darwin. In theory, those who have shown the most merit should have the opportunity to perform, and according to Social Darwinism, that is a trait that is acquired by the Parents from the environment and inherited genetically by the
Good point. In a perfect world social darwinism would be different from the divine right of kings as we would all start out with the same means and best would rise. In the real world some of us have great advantages not having to do with personal ability. Things like wealthy parents, the right gender, the right race etc etc etc. So the answer to your question is that in the real world social darwinism does not exist, but the divine right of kings does.
The Kings became Kings as the rich become rich —by ability to lead to rule to subjugate to impress to influence to read the market — etc etc etc ================================== Not correct. Kings did not arrive in their positions as a reflection of ability, but arrived there very frequently because they could be manipulated, and after reaching the pinnacle, manipulated yet more. Kings became the source of ‘the good life’ until the kingdom became so big very few people knew who the king was. Because he was that source for the Good Life, social Darwinism was seldom extant in … kingdoms. One exception may have been Charlemagne. Some of the Roman Caesars also, and most decidedly Peter the Great of Russia. So I would suggest very, very few in the very many ‘kings’ fought for their kingdoms, and many, many paid for their kingdoms.
