There has been some serious confusion regarding Spencer’s views on the poor and the less fortunate in society.  As mentioned earlier, Spencer’s concept of evolution was not based on Darwinism.  Although Spencer often cited Darwin’s findings, he did not necessarily come to the same conclusions.  The second bit of evidence that backs up this claim is that Spencer’s famous term of survival of the fittest was not a description of his system.  While Spencer did espouse a system of evolution for society, it was more of adaptation to outward pressures on that society and not a dog eats dog competition for survival where its weakest members were left to starve to death.  He was a strong advocate of philanthropy, and though he was a notorious spendthrift, he was also famously charitable.  “He was consistent in this position in his later life; when he argued against public assistance, he always supported private or voluntary aid even though he suspected that this too would reduce the quality of the individual’s existence. His belief was that even if charity produced ill consequences, it should be tolerated because the exercise of sympathy towards the worst off would, by and large, be beneficial” (Francis 28).  Spencer had a positive view of charitable works, but he also had a hard spot for those whom he labeled as good-for-nothings. In other words, those who were perfectly healthy and could work yet chose to drink all day or lie around instead; this was not an uncommon opinion at this time.

There is ample evidence laid out by Mark Francis in his book Herbert Spencer and the Invention of Modern Life that, in fact, a concerted effort was made by many scholars to pin the uglier aspects of Darwin’s original theory of Survival of the Fittest on Spencer.  It would seem to make sense considering the differences between Spencer’s theories of evolution caused by environmental pressure versus Darwin’s theory, which rested on interspecies competition, where the least fit members were eliminated from the gene pool.  It is obvious that Spencer and his ideas were the sacrificial lamb placed upon the altar of science to save Darwin’s reputation.

“Spencer rejected social Darwinism as a justification of the need for aggression in future social change. However, despite this, his theory of evolution has often been confused with Darwinism, especially by popular scientific writers who wish to protect Darwin’s scientific reputation from being stained by racist slurs. They have even suggested that “social Darwinism” be relabelled  [sic] “social Spencerianism”.  Such badge-engineering proposes that while, in the modern era, theories of natural selection were used as doctrines of racial competition, this blemish was not Darwin’s fault. There is a transfer of blame at work here: Darwin is innocent, therefore the fault must lie elsewhere. At this point, Spencer is arbitrarily substituted for Darwin, presumably because he too was well known and, not being a professional scientist, he serves as a more acceptable scapegoat” (Francis 295).

The implication has been that Spencer was a racist, and any person who has ever read Spencer’s work would know this was false.  Many have taken these farcical views a step even further, claiming he was a eugenicist and a racist.  Not only was Spencer anti-racist but he was also anti-colonialism (Francis 295).  Spencer abhorred the way indigenous people were treated at the hands of the British Colonial Authority.

Overall, many of his enemies were of the socialist persuasion and had an interest in misrepresenting Spencer because of his uncompromising views on the subject of Laissez Faire capitalism and socialism in general.  Spencer was neither a ‘Social Darwinist,’ nor a racist eugenicist, and those who suggest it either completely misunderstood him or intentionally sought to slander him for personal reasons.

Section 5. Other criticisms of Spencer

Surprisingly, Spencer remained very consistent throughout his life in his philosophy and political views.  Two major criticisms seem to boil to the surface when reviewing his work.  While an early proponent of full and equal women’s rights, including suffrage, these views changed later in life because Spencer viewed women as nurturers.  As such, through the years, I began to believe that women would, by and large, vote for more authority and less freedom in the name of social programs to nurture the less fortunate in society.  It is true that sympathy in Spencer’s mind was the single most important part of justice, but he thought it should lead to philanthropy and not government social welfare (Spencer, The Complete Works of Herbert Spencer, Location 41289).  Spencer believed without any real evidence that allowing a woman the right to vote would result in less overall freedom due to over taxation.

The second area of criticism which has been leveled at Spencer as a social and political philosopher came at the hands of socialists.  Socialists heralded Social Statics as a major work of philosophy that advocated Anarchism.  In particular, I will discuss the section that Spencer wrote regarding land ownership.  It was universally misinterpreted by many, and even still to this day is read wrong.  It and other statements published in chapter nine of that work do not advocate the nationalization of land.  It states that land belongs to all humankind and that the need for society at large, in some instances, takes precedence over others.  It is more of a statement against British colonialism and feudalism than a call for land nationalization; an invective against the habit of the Crown to invade and claim the land of other peoples.   For the most part, Spencer also claims that it is the right of society, in general, to determine how land will be distributed, not the nobility or royalty.

Spencer advocates the idea that society, through its common sense, rightly has the prerogative to distribute the land as it sees fit.  In this regard, Spencer stated that the common sense of society and its members in everyday dealings upheld the ideas of private property, thereby insisting that men were reimbursed for their improvements and years of upkeep on that property.  In Spencer’s view, only society can dictate the rules of ownership, and neither king nor nobleman may lay any more claim to the land than the common people themselves.

In his 1851 book Social Statics, Spencer made the following statement:

“Whether it may be expedient to admit claims of a certain standing, is not the point. We have here nothing to do with considerations of conventional privilege or legislative convenience. We have simply to inquire what is the verdict given by pure equity in the matter. And this verdict enjoins a protest against every existing pretension to the individual possession of the soil; and dictates the assertion, that the right of mankind at large to the earth’s surface is still valid; all deeds, customs, and laws, notwithstanding” (Spencer, The Complete Works of Herbert Spencer, Location 41617).

After Spencer published The Man Versus the State in 1884, many socialists and Anarchists felt betrayed by what they saw as backpedaling on the topic of land nationalization.  It was, in fact, a misunderstanding on their part regarding his original position, which has been clarified above.  “Spencer vehemently attacked Henry George and land-nationalizers and was, in turn, attacked for having abandoned his own belief in the societal ownership of land. George in particular criticized Spencer’s alleged apostasy, which seemed to be epitomized by the disappearance of the chapter on “The Right to the Use of the Earth” from the 1892 edition of Social Statics” (Spencer, The Man Versus the State, Location 162).  Nevertheless, he set the record straight, and this has contributed to Spencer’s unpopularity within the Libertarian left.

Section 6. Spencer the First Modern Libertarian

Herbert Spencer had begun to fade from the view of modern mainstream philosophy, even before his death.  However, in the field of sociology, his ideas have continued to be influential, and his contributions in the area of General Systems Theory and Functional Structuralism are among the very most important.  In particular, Spencer has had a profound impact on the field of economics and political theory.  In the area of sciences, such as evolutionary biology, his work is dated.  His theories on evolution were based on the knowledge of the time, and so the main body of scientific work Spencer produced has fallen to the wayside.  The mainstream view of Spencer, in the mid-twentieth century, has been best summed up by Frederick Copleston.  “Though however, Spencer remains one of the great figures of the Victorian age, he now gives the impression of being one of the most dated philosophers” (Copleston 121).  However, Spencer became very important with a group of economists, known as the Austrian School, whose ideas also fell out of favor with the mainstream thought of economic science.

The founder of the school of Austrian economics was Carl Menger, who, like Spencer, held an evolutionist view of life.  Spencer’s evolutionist view of society and state institutions had a strong impact on Menger and the Austrians.  Especially, Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek and Mr. Libertarian,’ Murray N. Rothbard.  (Beckert and Zafirovski 404).  Rothbard once said that Spencer’s book Social Statics was the single greatest piece of Libertarian political theory ever written.  “Rothbard become immersed in the libertarian tradition that predated him, which he relied on through the rest of his intellectual life: Mises, Nock, Mencken, Tucker, Spooner, and Spencer (whose Social Statics Rothbard called “the greatest single work of libertarian political philosophy ever written”)” (Doherty 246).  It is also well-known that the book, The Man Versus the State, and Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, were both listed in the manifest from the estate sale of the late Ayn Rand.

This is not surprising because some of Spencer’s most basic ethical and political theories can be found in both Rothbard and Rand’s works.  Rand claimed to be an Objectivist after the ideology she iterated in her novel Atlas Shrugged.  However, her influence has been primarily that of a libertarian.  The central principle of Rand’s Objectivism is the Non-Aggression Principle.  Murray Rothbard, who is largely regarded as the father of modern-day libertarianism, founded in North America, also espoused an identical position called the Non-Aggression Axiom.  “The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is, therefore, synonymous with invasion” (Rothbard, For a New Liberty, Location 426).  This creed is the very heart of libertarianism.  If you do not support it, then you are not a libertarian.

The Non-Aggression Axiom is in essence, an updated and trimmer version of Herbert Spencer’s Rational Utilitarianism.  As pointed out earlier in this paper, the first principle of Rational Utilitarianism is, “The limit put to each man’s freedom, by the like freedom of every other man, is a limit almost always possible of exact ascertainment; for let the condition of things be what it may, the respective amounts of freedom men assume can be compared, and the equality or inequality of those amounts recognised.” (Spencer, The Complete Works of Herbert Spencer, Location 40981).  A secondary law of the first principle further limits physical aggression, “It is just as clear, too, that each man is forbidden to deprive his fellow of life or liberty: inasmuch as he cannot do this without breaking the law, which, in asserting his freedom, declares that he shall not infringe “the equal freedom of any other.” For he who is killed or enslaved is obviously no longer equally free with his killer or enslaver” (Spencer, The Complete Works of Herbert Spencer, Location 41541).  Again, what Rand and Rothbard have done is to distill Spencer’s Law of Rational Utilitarianism into a briefer principle or axiom.

Spencer also claimed that Rational Utilitarianism promotes ‘rational self-interest.’  Altruism for Spencer was a primary desired trait, and Rothbard agreed.  Rand did as well; however, she changed the terminology, which was quite possibly an attempt to hide the fact that she had co-opted Spencer’s rational self-interest.  Rand changes it to selfishness and calls it a virtue.  She blames Altruism, which she conflates with socialism and complete selflessness.  The caveat is that charity is acceptable in Rand’s system because one has a self-interest in helping friends and family.  Essentially, Rand believes in rational self-interest and redefines altruism as absolute self-sacrifice, which Spencer never advocated either.  Spencer, like Rand, advocated charity because it was in one’s rational self-interest, and not as some attempt at total self-sacrifice.  Max Hocutt had this to say on the subject of Ayn Rand’s concept of the virtue of selfishness versus Spencer’s rational self-interest in his paper, In Defense of Herbert Spencer, “As Adam Smith’s wise friend David Hume pointed out, the paradigm of an unselfish man is one who gets pleasure out of doing for others. The selfish man, in contrast, gets pleasure only out of what benefits himself” (Hocutt 437).  It is obvious that if Rand perceives it to be acceptable to help friends and others in need, and if this is the case, then she does not have an issue with actual Altruism, but instead some redefined concept of Altruism that allows her to claim her term is selfishness instead of rational self-interest. It is not hard to see that her core ethical philosophy is actually Spencer’s ethical philosophy.

It has been shown that it is very likely that the primary ethical ideas and political philosophy of Rothbard and Rand were based (at least in part) on Spencer’s political and ethical philosophy of Rational Utilitarianism.  Because the Non-Aggression Axiom (or Principle) is central to libertarianism as a political philosophy and ethical system, it is clear that Spencer is the starting place for Modern Libertarianism.  It can even be said that Spencer’s belief is that any man who steadfastly followed Rational Utilitarianism would have no need for government at all.  “If every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the state—to relinquish its protection, and to refuse paying towards its support” (Spencer, The Complete Works of Herbert Spencer, Location 43279).

It should not be considered unreasonable to suppose that Spencer’s influence has been around all along, hiding within the sidelined and ignored Austrian school of economics and within the ideology of Ayn Rand.

Section 7.  Spencer’s legacy

Herbert Spencer was a complex man with complex ideas.  The philosophy of evolution, which he explored to its fullest, is no longer on the vanguard of science.  It is still important, but only in its value as a precursor to contemporary theories based on new scientific findings.  The acceptance of evolution by society at large is in no small part due to Spencer.  What has remained are his ideas on the philosophy of social science.  Until recently, there was no other consideration in the mainstream of academia for him.

The emergence of modern American Libertarianism, from what Murray Rothbard once said, consisted of seven guys in his living room, has given new life to Spencer’s ideas and those schools of thought influenced by him, like the Austrian school of economics.  Inevitably, those interested in libertarian studies will search for the roots of its origin, and this will lead to Herbert Spencer.  While many individuals have contributed to libertarian philosophy, few have ideas as critically important.  Spencer’s Rational Utilitarianism provides the ethical underpinnings of this movement, which is, at its essence, a new and improved version of Enlightenment liberalism.  One that rejects the Empirical Utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill, or as Spencer called it, the Expediency-Philosophy.  Libertarians see Bentham and Mill as the Trojan horse that created Democratic Socialism and led to economic disasters such as the recent government debt crisis in Greece; just the type of thing Spencer predicted would happen in places where the Expediency Philosophy is routinely applied.

Spencer’s legacy as the Prometheus of libertarian philosophy is undeniable.  He is clearly, more than any other individual, responsible for the ideas which remain intact within a growing and diversifying political movement; libertarian ideas are now more popular than ever.  In his last few years, he was derided and heckled by his countrymen due to his vocal opposition to the Boer War and British colonialism.  Spencer, who stood on his principles against racism, colonialism, and military adventurism, got himself into trouble with the Tories of the empire.  It would haunt him for his very last days.

It would haunt him for his very last days.  In his final years, Spencer faced criticism and isolation from many in Britain, unlike Socrates, who retained the support of friends until his death..

“The decay of his repute was part of the English-Hegelian reaction against positivism; the revival of liberalism will raise him again to his place as the greatest English philosopher of his century. He gave to philosophy a new contact with things, and brought to it a realism which made German philosophy seem, beside it, weakly pale and timidly abstract. He summed up his age as no man had ever summed up any age since Dante; and he accomplished so masterly a coordination of so vast an area of knowledge that criticism is almost shamed into silence by his achievement. We are standing now on heights which his struggles and his labors won for us; we seem to be above him because he has raised us on his shoulders. Someday, when the sting of his opposition is forgotten, we shall do him better justice” (Durant 161).

Herbert Spencer’s legacy, often misjudged, shines through his Rational Utilitarianism and dedication to personal freedom. Far from a Social Darwinist, he supported philanthropy, opposed racism and colonialism, and favored voluntary cooperation over state control. His insights on land ownership and government limits remain relevant, influencing modern thought despite his dated science. Spencer’s clear vision continues to guide debates on balancing individual rights with collective needs.

Links to References

The third and final installment of a three-part overview of Herbert Spencer.

The post Herbert Spencer Part III : Clearing Social Darwinism’s Shadow appeared first on The Miskatonian.

Spencer was not a rich man and, as a result, took to selling subscriptions to his work.  Thus, by doing this, he could earn a living by writing full-time.  It later became a problem. After publishing First Principles in 1862, many respected theologians and public figures condemned him loudly.  It caused a financial hardship because many of Spencer’s subscribers were Christians.   Also, those who were in the science field began to condemn the use of the term Unknown as a reference or substitute for God.  “For a time, the evolutionists were severely ostracized by respectable people; they were denounced as immoral monsters, and it was thought good form to insult them publicly. Spencer’s subscribers fell away with every installment, and many defaulted on payments due for installments received” (Durant 147).  When Spencer’s friend and rival J.S. Mill heard that Spencer would be forced to discontinue his work, he offered him financial help, which was promptly refused outright.  Not to be discouraged, Mill went to several friends and encouraged them to subscribe at the rate of 250 copies each; Spencer objected to this as well.

Finally, a group of his admirers in the United States purchased seven thousand dollars in securities and made him the beneficiary of the dividends.  With his financial crisis solved, he could finally move forward.  If it had not been for Mill, A System of Synthetic Philosophy might never have happened.  It is interesting that Mill should have put so much effort into saving the philosophical system, which was at the time the prime rival to his system.

In Herbert Spencer’s First Principles, he lays out the core basis for A System of Synthetic Philosophy’s direction.  First and foremost, it is not an attack on or a confirmation of God.  It is instead a scientific investigation of the same questions that religion tries to answer.  “Truth generally lies in the coordination of antagonistic opinions. “Let science admit that its ‘laws’ apply only to phenomena and the relative; let religion admit that its theology is a rationalizing myth for a belief that defies conception. Let religion cease to picture the Absolute as a magnified man; much worse, as a cruel and bloodthirsty and treacherous monster, afflicted with “a love of adulation such as would he despised in a human being” (Qtd. in Durant 148).  Reconciliation between science and religion is to be a part of Spencer’s new reformation.

First Principle’s places evolution at the center of existence.  All the energy and all the matter, in both living creatures and throughout the universe, seek and move to achieve equilibrium.  Then, after equilibrium comes an eventual dissolution, one cannot help but see a bit of parallel with Hegel’s Dialectic, but instead of ending in perfection, the ending was more suitable to Schopenhauer’s philosophy.  “First Principles is a magnificent drama, telling with almost classic calm the story of the rise and fall, the evolution and dissolution, of planets and life and man; but it is a tragic drama, for which the fittest epilogue is Hamlet’s word—” The rest is silence” (Durant 149).  First Principles served as the forward for a work of philosophy that both defined and created much of the Victorian age.

Spencer’s views on evolution, which were put forth in The Principles of Biology, where he speculated that all organisms started out as relatively simple, basic, homogeneous structures.   Over time, and through evolution,n the organisms progress to differentiated structures with compartmentalized specialization and heterogeneity.  Spencer also tried to apply this principle to non-organic structures such as planets, stars, and solar systems.  He believed this to be a universal law.  Spencer was obviously wrong about non-organic structures, but this does seem to fit into evolution in many ways.  Evolution in this system was a matter of equilibrium.  “Life is the continuous adjustment of internal relations to external relations” (Durant 150).  He was expounding the ideas of evolution for nearly a decade before Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was first published in 1859.  Darwin’s term ‘survival of the fittest’ originated during a conversation between him and Spencer.  After Darwin had explained his work, Spencer called it ‘Survival of the Fittest’ and Darwin began to use it continuously ever after (Francis 3).  The Principles of Biology in no way expounds survival of the fittest because, in essence, this was Darwin’s theory, not Spencer’s.

The Principles of Psychology are the least impressive of Spencer’s ten volumes.  While great lengths are taken to expound hundreds of theories on mental categories and other ideas, there is little proof to substantiate it.  Time is taken to discuss in detail the workings of nerve endings, reflexes, and connective tissues, but noticeably, what is missing is the evidence.  What is most impressive is the fact that Spencer attempts a truly modern form of evolutionary psychology.  Through the positing of inheritable traits and instinctual behaviors, he was a full century ahead of his time.  “What strikes us at once is that for the first time in the history of psychology, we get here a resolutely evolutionist point of view, an attempt at genetic explanations, an effort to trace the bewildering complexities of thought down to the simplest of nervous operations, and finally to the motions of matter” (Durant 151).

Herbert Spencer’s work on The Principles of Sociology has been and is still held in high regard.   It was undoubtedly his favorite topic, and it showed, in his first book, Social Statics, to the last fascicle of The Principles of Sociology; over a stretch of almost half a century, his interest is predominantly in the problems of economics and government.  “He begins and ends, like Plato, with discourses on moral and political justice. No man, not even Comte (founder of the science and maker of the word), has done so much for sociology” (Durant 152).  Spencer rejected both Comte’s atheism and his more idealistic notions, instead preferring to replace them with his own evolutionary ideas.

Regarding the claims of Spencer’s Social Darwinism, it must be remembered first that he did not advocate Darwinism.  Spencer’s ideas on evolution were primarily based on those of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.  Darwinism was centered on the idea of survival of the fittest.  Spencer’s ideas, as shown through his sociology, were not based on the survival of the fittest, which was a reproductive theory.  Instead, as remarked earlier, his views of evolution were those of simple homogeneous structures moving over time to more complex and heterogeneous structures until they reached a point of equilibrium.  Hence, when exposed to external pressures, an organism evolves special organs and structures that help achieve equilibrium with the outside environment.

Spencer viewed society as a social organism that was always moving towards heterogeneity, as it sought to achieve equilibrium with pressures from outside its environment. “A social organism is like an individual organism in; these essential traits: that it grows; that while growing it becomes more complex; that while becoming more complex, its parts acquire increasing mutual dependence; that its life is immense in length compared with the lives of its component units;… that in both cases there is increasing integration accompanied by increasing heterogeneity” (Qtd. in Durant 152).  When applied to societies, one finds that certain specialized institutions, such as religion, appear to help achieve equilibrium in response to external pressures, such as war or unexplained environmental changes.

Spencer classified societies into two types, militant or industrial.  In his mind, militant societies were less advanced and more savage.  Since all power was focused centrally within a militant society, it was more homogenous, which, based on his ideas of evolution, was less evolved.  Militant societies were marked by less freedom for individuals and a greater propensity for savagery internally, as well as externally.

As the societal organism, advanced control or power would begin to spread out to other institutions other than the central government, and as these institutions increased, so would the heterogeneity and complexity.  “Students of the state habitually classify societies according as their governments are monarchical, aristocratic, or democratic; but these are superficial distinctions; the great dividing line is that which separates militant from industrial societies, nations that live by war from those that live by work” (Durant 153).  All societies would eventually move from militant to industrial in nature, and with greater complexity, more individual freedoms would appear.  The idea would be that eventually, as the most advanced societies evolved, complexity would become such that individual freedom would be absolute and there would be little or no violence or savagery.  Thus, a peaceful anarchism would occur.

One should not mistake this view by Spencer for the idea that he believed society was an actual organism, at least not in the same sense as a living organism, where all control rests in a relatively small area of the brain.  If one were to believe that this was his intention, it might lead to the conclusion that he was implying that the dissolution of intelligence in actual living creatures was preferred, and this was not the case.  Spencer was not a proponent of collectivism or a strong centralized authority in society, and so the analogy did not extend to the ordering of government.  “An enthusiast for the interpretation of political society as an organism might, of course, try to find detailed analogies between differentiation of functions and the organic body, and in society.  But this might lead him into speaking, for example, as though the government were analogous to the brain and as though the other parts of society should leave all thinking to the government and obey all of its decisions” (Copleston 131).

Although Spencer’s views are not based on Darwin’s survival of the fittest, he was attacked in the first half of the twentieth century relentlessly for his adherence to laissez-faire economics and for being a proponent of Social Darwinism.  Spencer’s philosophy of sociology is the underlying foundation of his views regarding ethics and morals as well.  The logical outcome is that the individual does not exist for the benefit of the collective state, but instead, in more evolved societies, the state exists for the benefit and protection of the individual (Durant 155).  This is indeed in line with John Locke’s concept that the state only exists to protect men’s rights and property.

The Principles of Ethics comprises the final two volumes of Spencer’s A System of Synthetic Philosophy.  In it, he laid out in full his ethical theory of Rational Utilitarianism, which is not to be confused with the Empirical Utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill or Jeremy Bentham.  The core basis for Spencer’s ethics is, first and foremost, biology and, of course, evolution (Durant 155).  This theory has also been explained in Social Statics, nearly half a century before.  Human beings are organisms, and organisms must exercise their faculties to survive.  The faculties consist of sight, auditory, speech, consumption of food, drinking, socializing, and all other manner of human activity.  Spencer maintains that all organisms, including humans, do not exercise faculties frivolously, and so every action is an intuitive, yet rationally calculated move to ensure their survival.  Hence, even recreation and play are necessary for survival. The exercise of faculties is the exercise of life; any prohibition of them is death; partial restriction of the faculties is partial death, and so on.

It can be reasoned from here that each person should be allowed to do whatever they must to achieve as full an exercise of their faculties as possible.  The result is The Theory of Rational Utilitarianism.  One might wonder how this differs with respect to Bentham’s version of utility or Mill’s?  Spencer maintains it is impossible to account for what each man needs to find happiness or to define happiness.  Inevitably, under Bentham’s system, individuals were hurt because what mattered was that society undertook actions that benefited the majority, and often this led to an injustice perpetrated on the minority.  Spencer referred to Bentham and Mill’s utilitarianism as the ‘Expediency-philosophy’ (Spencer, The Complete Works of Herbert Spencer, Location 39489).  He maintained that instead of trying to figure out what would make the most people happy and then pass the laws for it, it was better to pass as few laws as possible, thereby letting each person pursue their happiness with fewer barriers.

 It led to his maxim of Rational Utilitarianism:

Mark now, however, that these supplementary restrictions are of quite inferior authority to the original law. Instead of being, like it, capable of strictly scientific development, they (under existing circumstances) can be unfolded only into superior forms of expediency. The limit put to each man’s freedom, by the like freedom of every other man, is a limit almost always possible of exact ascertainment; for let the condition of things be what it may, the respective amounts of freedom men assume can be compared, and the equality or inequality of those amounts recognized. But when we set about drawing practical deductions from the propositions that a man is not at liberty to do things injurious to himself, and that he is not at liberty (except in cases like those lately cited) to do what may give unhappiness to his neighbours, we find ourselves involved in complicated estimates of pleasures and pains, to the obvious peril of our conclusions. (Spencer, The Complete Works of Herbert Spencer, Location 40981)

Spencer found that biological conclusions supported natural law theories and intuition-based morality, which aligns with Common Sense philosophy.  This put him at odds with Bentham and Mill’s utilitarianism, or ‘Expedience-Philosophy,’ which he blamed for transforming classical liberalism into socialism.  In Spencer’s opinion, the ideas of Bentham and Mill led to the encroachment of personal freedoms in the name of greater happiness for the majority.  Modern Liberalism was a hard pill for Spencer to swallow, and his opposition to the social programs and economic interventions it created is the single biggest factor in why he was labeled a Social Darwinist by many socialist and utilitarian intellectuals.

The post Herbert Spencer Part II: The Grand Puzzle: Piecing Together A System of Synthetic Philosophy appeared first on The Miskatonian.