Pertaining to Edward Bellamys Looking Backward

Edward Bellamy
Name
Institution
Due Date
Edward Bellamy
Does Bellamy challenge Spencer? How?
Yes.
Bellamy’s idea of how the society needs to be seems to challenge Spencer’s beliefs of society. Both individuals staunchly believed in their versions of society, and while their means of delivery was different, they have come to be appreciated, and their contributions noted. Spencer’s ideal society was one in which every person was concerned for themselves and sought to empower themselves. In his assertions, he made use of the moral sense which Blackburn (1994) defines as the human attribute responsible for our emotional reaction to things as well as man’s evaluation of the morality of something. While elucidating on Spencer’s use of the moral philosophy, Bannister (1979) notes that Spencer believed that “the moral sentiment developed in man was intended to be instrumental in producing further progress, and to gag it, or to conceal the thoughts it generates is to balk creative design.” In Spencer’s world, the man was to be left to fend for himself and his natural rights were not to be violated. Things ought to be left to run or take their course and while “such conduct may, at first sight, appear unkind, but when its effects upon future generations are considered, it will be found to be the reverse” (Spencer, 1884).
In Spencer’s world, change is as a result of the changes in human nature which evolves and thus spreads or influences everything around it. However, Bellamy sees this differently, to him, changes in society are as a result of the economic equalization of all members of the society. Individuals seeking and pursuing their self-interest and profit create the need for integration and concentration of power. Bellamy was looking at the poverty that had been created by the ideals of people like Spencer and believed that such could come to an end if and when power is central, and there is public ownership.
It is no secret that Spencer advocated for the survival of the fittest ideology, and in his world, the man was to be left to fend for himself. Apparently, to him this would lead to the proliferation of poor people whom he did not consider fit. Legislation to him rested on the assumption that “men are not fit to take care of themselves” (Spencer, 1884). “Poor things! If we do not look after them, they will be going to ignorant quacks for advice, and perhaps, get poisoned!” This he believed was the way the government saw its people and the need for legislation. “Such is practically the language of the state towards its subjects, and the longer they are treated in this manner, the more helpless they will become” (Spencer, 1884). From the above, it is clear that he believed in less government intervention because for him, it poisoned and made the people weaker. His belief was grounded in the notion that humanity learns from his mistakes and failures and enacting or adopting laws which seek to prevent or oversee over certain activities derails learning or interferes with the natural flow of things. So, it was crucial that man’s capitalistic nature be left alone.
However, Bellamy challenged the high thinking and ideology of the society. In his thinking, being human ought to count for something and not one’s title or position in the society. In one instance in his book, Julian asks Dr. Leete “By what title does the individual claim his particular share? What is the basis of allotment?” (2012). Dr. Leete replied and told him that “His title is his humanity. The basis of his claim is the fact that he is a man.” Julian was understandably stunned and retorted “the fact that he is a man! Do you possibly mean that all have the same share?” As from the above conversation, Bellamy saw all men as equal, and so there was no need to glorify the actions or one or to consider one fitter than another. As Dr. Leete said as the conversation continued, “The amount of the effort alone is pertinent to the question of desert. All men who do their best, do the same. A man’s endowments, however godlike, merely fix the measure of his duty.” The above notion aims to challenge the notion of survival of the fittest. As Bellamy saw it, people are endowed with different gifts and everyone ought to use his or her to his or her level best. Humanity is gifted differently, and the world would have no mistakes or failures if everyone did that which he or she were supposed to and to the level that he or she could. Like Spencer, he did acknowledge that humanity is fit to take care of himself, but this will and can only happen if and when everyone takes time to do their part making use of the faculties the Creator accords them.
How do Bellamy and Spencer Differ?
The first way they differ is simple and direct in that Spencer advocates for no legalization, while Bellamy seems to believe that the presence of a central government is necessary. In the world that Spencer advocated for, everyone is to be free to pursue his self-interests and it is normal for people to work hard to out-wit each other. To him, as Bannister (1996) notes, no single person or authority could be left to decide on the morality of the society. In his elucidation of the society, he believed that it was wrong “to force another to act according to one’s concept of moral action” (Bannister, 1996). People were supposed to be left alone to find their way. The goal of Spencer’s society was to outdo each other and to prove oneself worthy of the position one holds in the society. There was no need for laws or rules because these as he believed helped to make the society better. He notes, “a large class of officiously human people, can never see any social evil, but they propose to pass some law for its future prevention. It never strikes them that the misfortunes of one are lessons for thousands – that the world generally learns more by its mistakes than by its successes” (Spencer, 1884). Here, he was stating his position on the presence of a central government. To him, the world does not need to be told what to do. It will learn from its mistakes and evolve to be better.
However, Bellamy differs greatly with Spencer’s notion that there is no need for a government. To Bellamy, the natural laws of economic individualism, laissez-faire, and Social Darwinism did not have a place in the world. These he considered archaic phenomena that needed to be ignored and let go. When people live in a society that is not governed by laws or rules, there are bound to be extremes who will seek to disrupt the peaceful state of society. Bellamy saw the need to have a central authority which would oversee the workings of a country without which the natural laws would persist.
Another area they differed is their propagation of capitalism and socialism. Bellamy as a proponent of socialism and utilitarianism believed in a society that seeks to strengthen every member. He advocated for a society that rewarded effort and avoided making use of models which highlighted people’s positions in society or skills. As explained by Dr. Leete, “The amount of effort alone is pertinent to the question of the desert” (Bellamy, 2012). Looking at the American economy, Bellamy had seen and been a part of the evils and wrongs which came as a result of the country’s glorification of capitalistic values. He saw an increase in poverty and the gap between the rich and poor increase. He believed that big organizations would eventually necessitate socialism. As the centralization of the economy continues to remain in the hands of a few large organizations, their power, and public character would soon necessitate socialism. In his world, everyone had a place. However, Spencer was clear in his assertion that people should fend for themselves and that the society should stop helping the poor because they are unfit. Power, opportunities for him ought to be left in the hands of those who hold the highest positions in society, or who seem to make good use of their time. In his explanation of Spencer’s use of the term fittest, Bannister (1979) notes that Spencer believed that this ideology would help to weed out “those who are constitutionally too feeble to live, even with external aid.”
Construct a brief conversation between Bellamy and Spencer and write that conversation.
Spencer: Bellamy, how do you see your version of the world works? Where have you seen or heard of a world where the fact that you are a person gives you a pass or makes you the same as other people?
Bellamy: Well, I believe that the fact that being human should count for something. People are born in different circumstances. Some are born lucky and in wealth and grow up believing they are entitled. Others, on the other hand, are born in poor conditions and grow up believing their position in society is among the poor. These people could be applying the same effort, or the latter could be applying more effort, but still condemned to live in abject poverty. Well, to me, this is an unfair arrangement and one that shows the foundation or the basis of compensating or assessing success in this society is flawed. Don’t you agree?
Spencer: allow me to disagree with your notion because this is a problem I believe we can weed out. My belief is that mankind started on the same level ground, but along the way, some slipped and fell, but chose to continue with the journey, others decided to pursue other interests and neglect the journey, others were consumed by what they saw and lost focus of the goal, while others kept and maintained their focus on the goal and target. Now, telling me to judge or consider all these sets of individuals in the society as equal is an insult to those who kept going. On the idea that other generations would succumb to the same cycle of thinking, I believe by figuratively eliminating the ‘unfit’ individuals; we will rid the society of any future problems.
Bellamy: Okay, but what’s your take on the goal of centralizing, or consolidating the functions of production and distribution. I believe that these functions should be centralized. Looking at the society today, the greatest percentage of the world’s wealth is controlled or owned by the top 0.6 percent of the world’s population. Here in the U.S., the situation is worse. In an article written by Kristof (2014), “the richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.” Oxfam (2014) on the other hand, reports that “the bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world.” What this means is that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few people. I attribute this to the values of capitalism, which continues to reward a few individuals even though they do just about the same amount of work or apply the same amount of effort as other people. Do you believe that such a system is fair?
Spencer: Well, yes. The system is perfect and helps to explain my point further that the world is meant for the fit and not the feeble. The individuals you me...