

































 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                     Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                                    Volume 08 || Issue 07 || July, 2025 || 

“A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual approach." 

 
 

 

A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual 

approach 

Graham Nicholson 

Phd, retired lawyer, Baha’i 

Abstract 

This article examines the relevance of the concept described since the 19th 

century as “survival of the fittest”.  It does so in relation to the one human race, 

homo sapiens, and examines its application thereto from a spiritual point of 

view, in contrast to those theories based on forms of scientific materialism.  It 

notes that much of the life, philosophy and practices in contemporary society 

still carry baggage derived from or reflective of this concept.  When taken to the 

extreme or when applied with vigour, it can result in a great deal of human 

suffering and injustice.  It argues that the thinking based on this concept is not 

inherent to the human condition but is the result of inculcation through life 

experiences and education, and can be changed by right education.  The remedy, 

it argues, lies in a spiritual education, an education that postulates changes in 

thinking and practices to emphasize our common spiritual links as one 

interdependent human race on one small planetary homeland. 

What is “survival of the fittest?” 

This concept has no precise meaning.  But it is perhaps more than the inherent 

will to live which every organism has.  And it must be more than just striving 

for excellence, or for a “fair go” for the individual concerned, without regard to 

others. One simple definition that has been given is: 

“You can use the survival of the fittest to refer to a situation in which only the 

strongest people or things continue to live or be successful, while the others die 

or fail.”1 

This can refer to any organism.  In this wider form it refers primarily to the use 

of the organism’s physical strength to live in a certain way in relation to another. 

Without the “other” it does not seem to meet the definition.  That is, it can 

sometimes be used to refer to the exercise of the strength and capacity by one in 

                                            
1
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/survival-of-the-fittest 

IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 07 | July 2025 |     https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 22

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/survival
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/refer
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/continue
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/successful
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fail


 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                     Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                                    Volume 08 || Issue 07 || July, 2025 || 

“A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual approach." 

 
 

 

order to subordinate another in a competitive or forceful way. It may be seen as 

being primarily a masculine thing, although not necessarily so.  It of course can 

extend to the use of overbearing techniques and practices that do not amount to 

actual direct physical force.  It carries in its extreme form an intent to live by 

total domination or superior overwhelming force, even in some cases to the 

point of leading to the death of the “other”.   And it can be used either with 

reference to individuals that seek to survive and prosper over others, or to 

groups such as tribes or nations that seek to survive and prosper as such over 

other groups.  In relation to nations, Brown wrote: 

“According to this idea, it is natural and desirable for one nation to behave 

aggressively toward another and to dominate it for its own benefit”2 

It can also extend not only to the struggle to survive by an organism but also for 

it to reproduce. Thus it can refer to the struggle to survive within the same 

species, the struggle carrying with it the ability to reproduce as an aspect of 

natural selection.  On the views of Malthus3, organisms had to over reproduce in 

order for a species to survive, leading to the struggle that is at the heart of the 

concept. 

The term, as will be discussed later, has come to be associated with the 

Darwinian concept of evolution.  And in this context a somewhat different 

definition of the term is sometimes advanced.  For example, the following quote 

was attributed to Darwin, and perhaps briefly summarizes his position even if 

not an accurate Darwinian quote: 

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, not the most intelligent that 

survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” 

In this sense it must still be part of the struggle to survive and reproduce, even if 

by adaptation. 

The ancient history 

The debate is ongoing as to the nature of the ancient human in primitive society, 

and how the struggle to live impacted on that person.   It ranges from a view 

                                            
2
Keven Brown, Evolution &Baha’I Belief, (2001) Kalimat Press, 112. 

3
Thomas Robert Malthus, 1766-1834. 

IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 07 | July 2025 |     https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 23



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                     Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                                    Volume 08 || Issue 07 || July, 2025 || 

“A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual approach." 

 
 

 

that envisaged a brutal competitive human in early society4, to a more peaceful, 

human nature that was basically good, but which became corrupted by society5.  

Some have argued, including Hobbes, that humans were inherently selfish and 

aggressive in nature, perhaps in response the rigours of survival in earlier times.  

But increasingly of late, emphasis has also been placed more on the cooperative 

factor in early human nature, including as it impacted upon human evolution.6It 

seems that humans are capable of both aggression and cooperation, depending 

on the context and motivations. 

On this last point it is suggested that ancient humans did develop sophisticated 

systems of cooperation.  One comment is as follows: 

“APPROACHES TO SURVIVAL With all the signs of injury, disease, and death, 

one might wonder how our early ancestors survived at all. But this gives the 

wrong picture. Although early hominins may have been relatively defenceless 

from a physical standpoint, part of their primate heritage included impressive 

defenses against predators, including being social and vocal. Primates in social 

groups keep watch over each other. Together, they can stay aware of predators 

and may gang up to scare them away. Many primates have warning calls as 

well; some are specific to attacks from birds, snakes, and leopards. Social and 

vocal behaviors like these may have made it reasonably safe for our ancestors 

to venture away from the trees in the first place. Throwing stones and using 

weapons were important additions to self- and group defense. There is also 

clear evidence that by about 800,000 years ago some hominins had controlled 

fire and built well-defined hearths. Most animals have an innate fear of fire and 

would be likely to have kept their distance from a campfire. The light from the 

                                            
4Thomas Hobbes.   “ Hobbes believed that it was human nature to be in a state of war, where every 
person was in a permanent state of conflict with every other person for the limited resources available 
“ (Stephen Olynyk, “ Convenient Fictions: A Comparisonand Critical Analysisof Hobbes’ and Locke’s 
Social Contract Theories”, The Western Australian Jurist Vol. 1, 2010 132). Hobbes stated that 
existence was “bellum omnium contra omnes”. 
5
 Jean J Rousseau.  “One day in 1749, at age 37, while walking to the Bastille to see his imprisoned 

friend, the major Enlightenment-era philosopher, Diderot, Rousseau saw an ad for an essay contest, 
hosted by the Academy of Dijon, asking a simple question: has science made us better or worse, 
more or less moral?As Rousseau tells it, he fell asleep in the park, had a vision, awoke in tears, and 
started to write hisDiscourse on the Sciences and Arts.He won the contest, instantly rose to fame, and 
forever changed the way humans see what it means to be human.His basic thesis: man is naturally 
good, and anything that is not natural has corrupted us from this natural 
state.”<uidaho.edu/engl_258/Lecture%20Notes/man_is_naturally_good.htm?ref=stanfordreview.org> 
6 Smithsonian’s Human Origins, 
<https://humanorigins.si.edu/sites/default/files/HO_044_055_CHAP_3.pdf> 

IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 07 | July 2025 |     https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 24



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                     Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                                    Volume 08 || Issue 07 || July, 2025 || 

“A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual approach." 

 
 

 

campfire would also have helped our ancestors avoid surprise attacks. Between 

800,000 and 400,000 years ago, when we see strong evidence for building both 

shelters and hearths, the level of human social cooperation had reached a 

crucial milestone.”7 

But at least in ancient human times, the struggle for existence must have often 

been a primary feature of primitive human life in response to the many threats 

to their existence. While within a particular small human group there may well 

have been a measure of cooperative conduct, as against other people outside the 

group and against all other threats, organic or otherwise, there would no doubt 

have been a struggle to survive, often against the other.  This struggle must have 

depended in large measure on human physical capacity, even with such limited 

defences and other innovative means of support. It may well have extended in 

some cases to struggles between particular primitive tribal peoples against other 

such peoples, or against other hominids, sufficient to be described as a survival 

of the fittest.  It has been suggested that this could have included engaging in 

war, killing and shedding of blood, burning and pillaging the homes of each 

other and living in conditions of the utmost debasement and immorality, 

reducing them to being lower and more brutal than animals8 

In animals, by way of comparison, self-preservation is essentially the process 

that prevents them from being harmed or killed and is generally considered a 

basic instinct of animals, whether inherent or learned.  This appears to override 

other instincts, at least when threatened.  The animal naturally seeks to 

maximize the use its physical capacities to survive and reproduce, although 

examples of cooperation do exist at least among particular species.  

Consequently, in nature in the wild, it can be argued that animals are 

predominantly governed by the imperative of the survival of the fittest. 

As human societal development advanced beyond the primitive stages, 

extending to settled societies, it would seem that the struggle for survival may 

have sometimes been modified somewhat within those societies to be rather less 

confrontational and aggressive.  Settled societies would no doubt have 

                                            
7
Ibid. 

8
Abdu’l-Baha, talk recorded in The Promulgation of Universal Peace, (7 November 1912 at 

Washington DC), Baha’i Publishing Trust, 400..The seriously violent conduct of some more modern 
leaders and combatants might perhaps also warrant this same description. 

IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 07 | July 2025 |     https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 25



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                     Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                                    Volume 08 || Issue 07 || July, 2025 || 

“A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual approach." 

 
 

 

developed rules to control, to some extent at least, aggressive or dominating 

conduct within those societies.  External threats to the survival of those societies 

may have become of more concern rather than threats within the same society. 

This is to some extent reflected in the Old Testament.  Thus the concept of an 

eye for an eye is set out in Leviticus9, but more in terms of a punishment for the 

taking of another life.  The many battles and conflicts that are described in the 

Old Testament, some said to be with Divine endorsement, indicate a lengthy 

struggle for existence on the part of the Israelites against external threats and 

challenges. 

Perhaps the New Testament reflects a different approach within societies. The 

new teaching in the Gospels is to turn the other cheek in the face of violence10 

and a rejection of idea of eye for an eye, with a command to love thine enemy11.  

This can be seen by some as a refutation of the concept of the survival of the 

fittest.  The subsequent Christian history has, it can be said, not always 

conformed to this new teaching. 

 

The enunciation of the concept of ‘Survival of the Fittest’ 

When we look at the brutality and competitiveness of much of human history, it 

does seem to support the view that humans were frequently governed by self-

interest and the quest for personal survival.  This was particularly so at least 

where the interests and survival of one group, tribe or nation were pitted against 

another.  In this sense, it might have seemed that there was not a great deal of 

difference between the approaches of the people and nations involved in the 

struggle for life and that of the animals in this regard12.  Warfare and violence 

                                            
9
Old Testament, Leviticus 24:17-22.  A similar approach is taken in the Holy Quran 5:45. 

10“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[But I tell you, do not resist an evil 

person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 
 
And if anyone 

wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” (New Testament, St Matthew 5:38-

40) 
11

New Testament, St Matthew 5:43-48. 
12

Although animals are generally only aggressive when they have a need to be as a matter of 
survival. Some humans have shown a propensity for aggression and self interested actions even 
where there is no need for it.Abdu’l-Baha wrote:   “Ferocity has characterized men even more than 
animals. The lion, tiger, bear and wolf are ferocious because of their needs. Unless they are fierce, 
cruel and unrelenting, they will die of starvation. The lion cannot graze; its teeth are fitted only for food 
of flesh. This is also true of other wild animals. Ferocity is natural to themas their means of 
subsistence; but human ferocity proceeds from selfishness, greed and oppression. It springs from no 

IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 07 | July 2025 |     https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 26



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                     Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                                    Volume 08 || Issue 07 || July, 2025 || 

“A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual approach." 

 
 

 

are part of the historical record.  Humans are still quite capable, even today, of 

using physical force or other competitive means to protect their own perceived 

self interests, hopefully in the domestic situation mitigated by the controls of the 

domestic law and law enforcement.  That capacity is even more obvious in the 

ongoing competition and confrontation between different empires and nations, 

absent any effective controls at international law.  The evidences of a long 

history of ongoing violent human conflict in the world makes this obvious, still 

common today.   

Some commentators might consider that the older religions did sometimes 

provide some semblance of restraint in the actions and responses of people and 

nations in terms of a more moralistic and less competitive or confrontational 

approach.  But then the history of disagreement and violence between and 

against different religions and sects and their adherents, and the capacity of 

people and nations to ignore or reinterpret their own religious restraints, does 

not allow this view to be taken too far.  Most religious people historically would 

probably never have questioned the view that life was inherently and primarily a 

struggle to survive, both individually and as part of society. Historically it was 

not labelled as “survival of the fittest” by name, but it did seem to often exhibit 

the characteristics of that approach even if not named as such. 

In terms of nomenclature, the fact is that the concept of the “survival of the 

fittest”, as a term of use, was not expressly enunciated as such until in the last 

few centuries. The phrase originated with the philosopher Herbert Spencer, as 

indicated in the following quote 

“The phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ is often incorrectly attributed to Darwin. In 

fact, it was coined by the philosopher Herbert Spencer in response to 

reading“Origin of  Species” five years after the first edition was published. 

Alfred Russel Wallace, whose own theory about the mechanics of evolution was 

almost identical to Darwin's, wrote to Darwin in 1866 with a lengthy criticism 

of Darwin’s term ‘natural selection’ and pleaded with him to minimise confusion 

by adopting 'Survival of the fittest'. Darwin introduced the phrase in a few 

places in his works from 5th edition of Origin in 1869. However, he never 

                                                                                                                                        
natural necessity.” (`Abdu'l-Baha, talk recorded in ThePromulgation of Universal Peace,(6 May 1912 
at Cleveland, Ohio),103) 

IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 07 | July 2025 |     https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 27



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                     Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                                    Volume 08 || Issue 07 || July, 2025 || 

“A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual approach." 

 
 

 

abandoned the term ‘natural selection’ and only saw ‘survival of the fittest’ as a 

synonym or auxiliary phrase to help make his meaning clear to his readers.”13 

Reflecting the influence of Malthus on the limits to population increases, 

Darwin wrote in the Origin of the Species: 

“A struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at which all 

organic beings tend to increase. Every being, which during its natural lifetime 

produces several eggs or seeds, must suffer destruction during some period of 

its life, and during some season or occasional year, otherwise, on the principle 

of geometrical increase, its numbers would quickly become so inordinately 

great that no country could support the product. Hence, as more individuals are 

produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for 

existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the 

individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life. It is the 

doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and 

vegetable kingdoms; for in this case there can be no artificial increase of food, 

and no prudential restraint from marriage. Although some species may be now 

increasing, more or less rapidly, in numbers, all cannot do so, for the world 

would not hold them.”14 

Darwin could recognise what he saw to be the elevated station of the human 

being, but still felt that they were constrained by their basic natural instincts: 

“Man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most 
debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the 
humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated  
into the movements and constitution of the solar system- with all these exalted 
powers- Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly 
origin.”15 
 
As a result, some have thought that Darwin applied the full force of the survival 

of the fittest to the human being as well as to animals, but this may be a 

                                            
13

<https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/commentary/survival-fittest> 
14http://www.literaturepage.com/read/darwin-origin-of-species-66.html 
15

Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871) Ch. XXI. 

IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 07 | July 2025 |     https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 28



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                     Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                                    Volume 08 || Issue 07 || July, 2025 || 

“A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual approach." 

 
 

 

misrepresentation16.  It is said that Darwin did not believe that humans were 

violent and competitive in their natural state. 

Elsewhere the doctrine has been extended by some writers to the human being 

on the basis that there is no difference between that human being and the 

animal.  In fact the view was promulgated that the human being was just 

another evolved animal.  Thus Thomas Huxley believed that humans were just 

another animal descended from the apes.  He wrote: 

“I have endeavoured to show that no absolute structural line of demarcation, 
wider than that between the animals which immediately succeed us in the 
scale, can be drawn between the animal world and ourselves; and I may add the 
expression of my belief that the attempt to draw a physical distinction is equally 
futile, and that even the highest faculties of feeling and of intellect begin to 
germinate in lower forms of life.”17 
 

Herbert Spencer was another advocate of the idea of the survival of the fittest.  

Of Darwin, Spencer wrote:“This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought 

to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural 

selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."18 

Commenting on Spencer it was stated: 

“Spencer decried attempts to equalize society’s playing field.  It would be 

counterproductive, he felt, for the “fit” to feel any obligation toward the 

“unfit”.   In dense tomes that sold hundreds of thousands of copies, he said of 

the poor that ‘the whole effort of nature is to get rid of such, to clear the world 

of them, and make room for better”19 

The 19th century enunciation of this concept by Spencer and others was not 

expressed to be as a new development in human relations; rather it was using 

the phrase in a descriptive sense to describe the alleged nature of past human 

                                            
16

Keltner stated“We so often assume both in the scientific community, and in our culture at large, that 
Darwin thought humans were violent and competitive and self-interested in their natural state. That is 
a misrepresentation of what Darwin actually believed, and where the evolutionary study of human 
goodness is going.”- in conversation with DavidDisalvo, Forget Survival of the Fittest: It Is Kindness 
That Counts, <https://www.dailygood.org/story/579/kindness-emotions-david-disalvo> 

17T Huxley, Man's Place in Nature, (1863) Ch.2, p. 129. 
18Herbert Spencer, Principles of Biology (1864) 
19

Frans de Waal, The Age of Empathy, Souvenir Press, (2009),28. 

IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 07 | July 2025 |     https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 29



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                     Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                                    Volume 08 || Issue 07 || July, 2025 || 

“A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual approach." 

 
 

 

nature and relations, a characteristic that was said to be a primary motivation in 

human affairs.  It was said to be a self interested and aggressive characteristic.  

And as an alleged inherent motivation, it can be deduced that the writers were 

asserting a continuation of that characteristic into the future of humanity, with 

little or no hope of a change in the future to a more peaceful, compassionate, 

cooperative, unifying approach.  Humanity, they seemed to be saying, is 

destined for ever more to be stuck with a struggle for survival, for the benefit of 

the one over and at the expense of the other. 

Speaking of this concept, Esslemont wrote: 

“During the past century scientists have devoted and immense amount of study 
to the struggle for existence in the plant and animal world, and, amid the 
perplexities of social life, many have turned for guidance to the principles 
which have been found to hold good in the lower world of nature. In this way 
they have come to regard rivalry and conflict as necessities of life, and the 
ruthless killing out of the weaker members of society as a legitimate or even 
necessary means of improving the race.”20 
 
But some evolutionary scientists since Darwin have taken the view that humans 
are not entirely controlled by the self-interested concept of survival of the fittest 
and are capable, for example, of altruistic behaviour.  Thus de Beer wrote: 
 
“From earliest human times, the survival value of altruistic behaviour has been 
enhanced because of the prolongation of childhood and the consolidation of the 
family that have characterized the evolution of Man.  The size of the unit within 
which altruistic behaviour conferred survival -value has grown progressively 
larger, but fitfully, as history and anthropology have shown, from the family to 
the clan, the tribe and the nation.  In this manner, ethical standards of conduct 
and morality have arisen which can be seen to develop in individuals and have 
been seen to evolve in societies….. With the development of man’s higher mental 
faculties, the pooling of experience by speech-communication and its storage in 
memory, conscious choice and purposiveness became factors in evolution.  
Hence his subsequent psycho-social evolution has been of a nature different 
from that of other organisms, because it is no longer governed solely by natural 
selection and therefore involved purposes outside the scope of natural 
selection”.21 
 

                                            
20J E Esslemont, Baha’u’llah and the New Era,(1923), Baha’i Publishing Trust, 147. 
21

Gavin de Beer, A Handbook on Evolution , Trustees of the British Museum, 1970, 21. 

IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 07 | July 2025 |     https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 30



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                     Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                                    Volume 08 || Issue 07 || July, 2025 || 

“A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual approach." 

 
 

 

Consequences of theories of Evolution and Survival of the Fittest 

While Darwin did not abandon all notions of a Deity, the consequences of his 

theory on the beliefs and practices of the wider society, in conjunction with 

advances in science generally, have been profound.   There has been a 

significant rise in what might be described as a philosophy of scientific 

materialism, not dependent on religion or on a theistic view of existence. The 

widespread dispersion of the philosophy expressly in name as the “survival of 

the fittest” would appear to have had an influence on many peoples in giving 

support to their views and in affecting their actions.  Such views have often 

been based on strong prejudices such as to race, religion, ethnicity, etc., and 

have sometimes lead to violence   The struggle for existence may now be 

sometimes emphasised by some as a matter of assumed basic principle that 

characterises human life and society.  This in turn has had a profound influence 

on the nature of society and the thinking of individuals within it, sometimes 

described as a “dog-eat-dog” attitude. Together with the spread of scientific 

materialism and the decline in organised religion, the human being came to be 

increasingly seen as just another animal, albeit a biologically advanced animal, 

and subject to much the same physical conditions and actions as an animal.  

One critical commentator wrote: 

“A hideous revolution took place in the sciences and in our culture during the 

latter part of the Nineteenth Century, which had the aim of remaking the self-

conception of the human species from that of a cognitive and creative being 

made in the image of the Creator, to that of an instinct-driven ape-like creature. 

This hideous cultural and scientific revolution has been so successful, that while 

we live in a world of potentially unlimited scientific progress, our descent into a 

totally bestial view of man has created both an inability to realize this potential, 

and with it an existential crisis for the human race.”22 

But is there an opposite view to that of humans being basically competitive and 

self interested, even though the latter view still commands a lot of support? To a 

large extent it can be argued that modern society, particularly on the capitalist 

model, which emphasises the rights of the individual to a substantial degree of 

freedom, largely unimpeded by the state, is based on the survival of the fittest 

                                            
22 Paul Glumaz,The Hideous Revolution: The British Malthusian, 
<http://www.literaturepage.com/read/darwin-origin-of-species-66.html#google_vignette> 

IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 07 | July 2025 |     https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 31



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                     Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                                    Volume 08 || Issue 07 || July, 2025 || 

“A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual approach." 

 
 

 

view.  Competition may be seen by some as necessary for the progress and 

wellbeing of society.  Carnegie wrote: 

“The price which society pays for the law of competition, like the price it pays 
for cheap comforts and luxuries, is great; but the advantages of this law are 
also greater still than its cost / for it is to this law that we owe our wonderful 
material development, which brings improved conditions in its train. But, 
whether the law be benign or not, we must say of it: It is here; we cannot evade 
it; no substitutes for it have been found; and while the law may be sometimes 
hard for the individual, it is best for the race, because it ensures the survival of 
the fittest in every department.”23 

Potentially such an approach, whilst perhaps offering the potential for more 
efficient results in the purely material terms of production and overall wealth, 
can open the door to all kind of unjust results if selectively or ruthlessly applied. 
Whilst wealth is not bad per se, many industrialists, economists, politicians and 
others, for example, appear to have been influenced by the concept of survival 
of the fittest in a belief in the centrality of a prosperous material economy based 
on competition and substantial inequality24.  Commonly, this approach has often 
been associated with a resultant great disparities of wealth.   

At the nation state level, the pursuit of the perceived self interests of the state 
are invariably given top priority in international relations, extending to fierce 
competition and in many cases to confrontation and war.  The global society has 
as yet been unable to develop a global system that is capable of bringing a just 
and lasting peace between nations.  Nation states still claim and often act as 
though they have absolute rights of sovereignty within their own territories and 
areas of influence and over their own and sometimes other peoples, even with 
the increasing levels of global inter dependence. Their perceived interests can 
be aggressively sought and applied. The result is a great deal of global inequity 
and injustice. 

 
The real danger is that the concept of survival of the fittest may be taken to an 

extreme level, both in relation to the individual and at the nation state level.  

This has already happened, as witness the doctrines of aggressive racial and 

                                            

23
Andrew Carnegie, The Gospel of Wealth, No. CCCXCI, (June, 1889).  To be fair, Carnegie was a 

great benefactor with his wealth. 

24
 The legislatures in many countries have found it necessary to legislatively intervene to outlaw the 

worst excesses of the free market in relation to such things as monopolies and combines, restrictive 
and dishonest trade practices, etc. 

IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 07 | July 2025 |     https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 32



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                     Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                                    Volume 08 || Issue 07 || July, 2025 || 

“A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual approach." 

 
 

 

national superiority with National Socialism, and in events and practices such as 

gross exploitation of workers, of the abuse of colonial subjects and of 

minorities, and in slavery, genocide and other gross human rights abuses.  The 

application of eugenics is another example.  If science is left unchallenged, the 

concept can be expressed in such developments between nation states as in the 

development of weapons of mass destruction and other abusive and destructive 

methods.  Morality and ethics can be devalued in the struggle for survival under 

such a philosophy, whilst undesirable conduct such as crime and corruption may 

well be given an opportunity to spread, the only fault being to be caught. 

 

Limits to the Survival of the Fittest 

Historically, there has often been thought given in recorded history to the 

possibility of limits to human selfish, competitive, or aggressive behaviour. 

Thus Aristotle contended that human beings are not naturally good but amoral, 

although they can be led to be good in the society through education. 

The great religions of antiquity asserted that certain standards of moral conduct 

were necessary for the good of society.  Reference has already been made to the 

teachings of the New Testament.  Other religions had similar principles, such as 

in the Golden rule of “do unto others…etc.”Most, if not all, of the world's 

religions promote altruism as a very important 

moralvalue. Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, 

and Sikhism, etc., place particular emphasis on altruistic morality25.It was 

generally assumed in the religious context that morally worthy behaviour such 

as cooperation and altruism, the opposite of the survival of the fittest approach,  

could be learned through religious belief and association.  This has lead to 

theological debate within Christianity, for example, given the tension between 

the survival of the fittest concept as already discussed on the one hand, and the 

view taken from the New Testament teachings that the one supreme God cares 

for all the creation on the other hand, including for the downtrodden and 

disposed in society, those that might be considered unfit. 

“If Christians confess that God cares for the weak, how does that relate to  

                                            
25

 Wikipedia,<wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism>/ 

IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 07 | July 2025 |     https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 33

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism


 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                     Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                                    Volume 08 || Issue 07 || July, 2025 || 

“A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual approach." 

 
 

 

the Darwinian struggle for survival? Is caring for the weak, poor and 
oppressed merely a requisite corrective to guard against the excesses of the 
strong? Or is God’s care for the weak the heart of the Christian faith – as 
suggested by the notion of the preferential option for the poor in liberation  
theology and by a concern for God’s justice in the Confession of Belhar26? On 
this question there remain deep ecumenical divides….”27 
 

The tendency within some religious thought has been to either reinterpret the 
survival of the fittest concept, including by way of emphasising cooperation and 
altruism in human nature, or to reject the concept, at least in its more extreme 
and more abusive and exploitative forms. Moral principles may be invoked, it 
often being asserted that moral have a direct links to organised religion.  The 
position is complex as it tends to be interconnected with the long debate 
between evolution and Divine creation.   Some Christians that have considered 
the concept may reject it and argue that one should rely on faith and trust in the 
Divine, arguing that in that faith and trust the weak are protected.  Some 
Christian sects may, on the other hand, have chosen not to approach the topic in 
any detail and to simply adopt an apocalyptic view of a future end to the earth 
and humanity due to its decadence, perhaps upon a miraculous return of their 
promised saviour, the chosen believers taking comfort in the belief that they will 
be taken up to a better place. 
 

The place of cooperation and altruism in human nature and practice has 

received increasing recent attention in the literature.  There is a now a body of 

literature on this topic.  This is sometimes used to balance the view that humans 

are self interested and aggressive.  In some cases it is seen that these features are 

not necessarily devoid of self interest28, as distinct from pure self sacrifice or 

altruism without any expectations. But at least the element of cooperation 

usually does not have the combination of domination or control to be found in 

the survival of the fittest, that is, unless there are ulterior motives.  Cooperation 

                                            
26

The Belhar Confession has its roots in the struggle against apartheid in southern Africa. It was first 
drafted in 1982 by the Dutch Reformed Mission Church, now the new Uniting Reformed Church in 
Southern Africa, and formally adopted in 1986. 

27
Ernst M. Conradie, “The Christian faith and evolution: An evolving, unresolved debate”, Verbum et 

Ecclesia 39(1), (June 2018) 

28Eg: Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation, (1984) Basic Books, Chapters 5 and 7;  Michael 
Karlberg, Beyond the Culture of Contest,(2004), George Ronald.  

IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 07 | July 2025 |     https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 34



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                     Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                                    Volume 08 || Issue 07 || July, 2025 || 

“A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual approach." 

 
 

 

and altruism are often seen as being connected to a moral/ethical position.  

Kropotkin wrote: 

“And man is …guided in his acts, not merely by love, which is always personal, 
or at the best tribal, but by the perception of his oneness with each human 
being. In the practice of mutual aid, which we can retrace to the earliest 
beginnings of evolution, we thus find the positive and undoubted origin of our 
ethical conceptions; and we can affirm that in the ethical progress of man, 
mutual support not mutual struggle -- has had the leading part. In its wide 
extension, even at the present time, we also see the best guarantee of a still 
loftier evolution of our race. ”29 
 
Martin Luther King took a moral standpoint in that he saw the concept of 

survival of the fittest as being undermined.  He stated: 

“Midnight is the hour when men desperately seek to obey the eleventh 
commandment, "Thou shalt not get caught." According to the ethic of midnight, 
the cardinal sin is to be caught and the cardinal virtue is to get by. It is all right 
to lie, but one must lie with real finesse. It is all right to steal, if one is so 
dignified that, if caught, the charge becomes embezzlement, not robbery. It is 
permissible even to hate, if one so dresses his hating in the garments of love that 
hating appears to be loving. The Darwinian concept of the survival of the fittest 
has been substituted by a philosophy of the survival of the slickest. This 
mentality has brought a tragic breakdown of moral standards, and the midnight 
of moral degeneration deepens.”30 
   
Religious Revision 
 
But in some religious teachings there is an express total rejection of the value of 
the concept of survival of the fittest in its alleged inherent application to human 
beings.  This is most pronounced in the teachings of the Baha’i Faith.  This is 
worth particular consideration, as it is the only independent religion in which its 
sacred writings specifically deal with this topic by name.31 
                                            
29

Peter Kropotkin,Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, (1902) 
30

Martin Luther King, speech “A Knock at Midnight” (14 September 1958) 
31Abdu’l-Baha (1844-1921), the eldest son of the Founder/Prophet of the Faith, Baha’u’llah, and 

whose writings are regarded as part of the corpus of the Baha’i sacred writings, specifically uses the 

term “survival of the fittest” in theearly 20thcentury – see Divine Philosophy(1918), 12.He also 

mentioned the topic by name in some of His talks,reproduced in The Promulgation of Universal 

Peace, Baha’i Publishing Trust (8 October 1912 at Leland Stanford Junior UniversityPalo Alto, 

California) at 353, and (7 November 1912, talk at Home of Mr. and Mrs. Arthur J. Parsons, 

Washington, D.C), at 400. 

IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 07 | July 2025 |     https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 35



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                     Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                                    Volume 08 || Issue 07 || July, 2025 || 

“A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual approach." 

 
 

 

 
Abdu’l-Baha noted in a letter that the present organisation of the planet into 
separate nations lies at the base of the problem.  He stated:   
 
“..All the nations are thinking of how to advance their own interests while 

working against the best interests of other nations. They desire their own 

personal advantage while seeking to undermine affairs in other countries. They 

call this the "struggle for survival" (tan‡zu'-ibaq‡), and assert that it is innate 

to human nature. But this is a grievous error; nay, there is no error greater than 

this. Gracious God! Even in the animal kingdom cooperation and mutual 

assistance for survival are observed among some species, especially in the case 

of danger to the whole group. … Insofar as animals display such noble 

sentiments, how much more should man, who is the noblest of creatures; and 

how much more fitting it is in particular that, in view of the divine teachings 

and heavenly ordinances, man should be obliged to attain this excellence. 

In the estimation of God, distinctions of race, divisions of borders, favoring one 

people over another, and all individual limitations are unworthy and rejected. 

All the prophets of God were sent down and all the sacred books were revealed 

for the purpose of assisting man to achieve this heavenly grace and this divine 

virtue. All the divine teachings can be summarized as this: that these thoughts 

singling out advantages to one group may be banished from our midst, that 

human character may be improved, that equality and fellowship may be 

established amongst all mankind, until every individual is ready to sacrifice 

himself for the sake of his fellowman. This is the divine foundation. This is the 

law come down from heaven. Such a firm foundation cannot be impregnated 

into human consciousness save by one universal and all-pervasive power, for 

every other power is helpless except for the power of the Holy Spirit. The 

outpourings of the Holy Spirit are such that they can transform man, imbuing 

him with all the virtues, bestowing upon him the second birth, baptizing him 

with the fire of the love of God, which is love for all created things, and 

quickening him with the water of eternal life, and the Holy Spirit itself.”32 

But as already noted, the concept of the survival of the fittest has at its root the 
idea that humans are inherently selfish and aggressive, both individually and in 

                                            
32Letter by Abdu’l-Baha, provisional translation by Keven Brown, Lawh-i-Tan‡zu'-iBaq, cited in 
Evolution & Baha’i Belief, (2001) Kalimat Press, at 112-114. 

IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 07 | July 2025 |     https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 36



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                     Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                                    Volume 08 || Issue 07 || July, 2025 || 

“A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual approach." 

 
 

 

society.  Writing of this, the Universal House of Justice, the ruling body of the 
Baha’i Faith, wrote:  
 
“….aparalyzing contradiction has developed in human affairs. On the one 
hand, people of all nations proclaim not only their readiness but their longing 
for peace and harmony, for an end to the harrowing apprehensions tormenting 
their daily lives. On the other, uncritical assent is given to the proposition that 
human beings are incorrigibly selfish and aggressive and thus incapable of 
erecting a social system at once progressive and peaceful, dynamic and 
harmonious, a system giving free play to individual creativity and initiative but 
based on co-operation and reciprocity. ”33 
 
In the Baha’i Faith, the philosophy that says that humans are incapable of 
looking beyond their own selfishness is rejected, to be replaced by a new, more 
spiritual approach to human society, one that advocates a new commitment to a 
much more principled, spiritually guided and less self-centred orientation in life.  
This is seen as being a matter of free choice for each individual with appropriate 
education.  In this regard, humans are perceived as having the spiritual and 
intellectual capacity to make such a choice between the two approaches, rather 
than being inherently tied to the one self-centered approach.  To achieve that, 
right education with a global basis is required. 
 
The Baha’i Writings accept that the nature of animals is largely based on the 

survival for existence.   But it teaches that human beings are not just animals; 

rather they have certain intellectual and spiritual qualities that differentiate them 

from animals.  In this sense nature is seen as being inherently defective due to 

the struggle for life, and that it is the task facing humans to use their God-given 

gifts to rise above this struggle.  The Writings envisage the human being as 

essentially being social beings and as having, with the right education, guidance 

and inspiration, special abilities and spiritual capacities to develop their 

character and conduct over time so as to transcend this struggle.  They postulate 

thatthe thinking based on this concept of survival of the fittest, whereby one 

person must struggle against other persons in order to survive, is not inherent to 

the human condition but is the result of inculcation through life experiences and 

inadequate education, and can be changed by right education.  The remedy, it 

argues, lies in a spiritual education, an education that postulates changes in 

thinking and practices to emphasize our common spiritual links as one 
                                            
33

Universal House of Justice, The Promise of World Peace, (1985) Baha’i Publishing Trust. 

IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 07 | July 2025 |     https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 37



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                     Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                                    Volume 08 || Issue 07 || July, 2025 || 

“A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual approach." 

 
 

 

interdependent human race on one small planetary homeland.  As a corollary, 

the Writings unequivocally teach the need for humanity to acquire and practice 

the Divine virtues of perfection as revealed by the Founder/Manifestations of 

the great religions in order to create a peaceful, united and fair society.  The 

acquisition by humanity of these virtues is seen as a fundamental aspect of the 

Revelation of their Founder Baha’u’llah34,  

Abdu’l-Baha wrote: 

“Some animals are isolated and lead a separate existence away from their kind.  

But this is impossible for man.  In his life and being cooperation and 

association are essential.   Through association and meeting we find happiness 

and development, individual and collective.”35 

“The supreme need of humanity is cooperation and reciprocity.  The stronger 

the ties of fellowship and solidarity amongst men, the greater will be the power 

of constructiveness and accomplishment in all the planes of human activity.”36 

And to achieve this, the Writings assert the need for a new, globally united 

society free of the limitations imposed by the divisions of the planet into 

separate, competing nation-states.  By humanity spiritually evolving and 

working cooperatively together in the global society as one united human race 

in this way, it is seen as the way forward for a divided humanity over time to 

heal the problems plaguing a very divided global society as it exists at present.  

The aim and purpose in this life is argued to be to achieve a unity in human 

diversity on a global basis.   

It should immediately be stated that this is not to advocate some form of 
communistic approach to society based on the theoretical equality of every 
person in a compulsory global collective.  Nor is it to advocate a purely 
materialistic approach to the issue. The individual is seen in Baha’i as having a 
critical role in society in order to freely make decisions as to spiritual beliefs 
and principles and to take responsibility therefore, to apply the Divine virtues 
including by way of service to others, to exercise individual initiative and free 

                                            
34

Baha’u’llah (1819 – 1892) is regarded by Baha’is as the Manifestation of God for this age and the 
Promised One of all the great religions. 
35

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, talk recorded in “The Promulgation of Universal Peace”, Baha’i Publishing Trust (20 
April 1912 at Washington DC), 35. 
36‘Abdu’l-Bahá, talk recorded in “The Promulgation of Universal Peace”, Baha’i Publishing Trust (25 
September 1912 at Denver, Colorado), 338. 

IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 07 | July 2025 |     https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 38



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                     Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                                    Volume 08 || Issue 07 || July, 2025 || 

“A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual approach." 

 
 

 

choices, to acquire an education, etc. At the same time the individual is 
encouraged to act in consultation and to seek cooperation and unity, to act with 
justice and moderation and be of useful service to humanity.  Charity and 
sharing are endorsed.  There has to be, on this view, a balance between the 
material and the spiritual to achieve this.  A purely materialistic philosophy will 
not suffice.  It is said that humanity needs to move away from a narrow view of 
individuals as profit-maximizing to a broader view of material and spiritual 
prosperity, expressed for example in community building projects and 
undertakings that bring people together.  Such efforts should provide insight into 
how service to one’s fellow human beings can foster economic and other 
relationships based on cooperation rather than competition, and service to 
others rather than narrow self-interest.”37 

The Universal House of Justice, the ruling body of the Baha’i Faith, spoke of 

the need for a peaceful, united world order in which all prejudices and forms of 

discrimination, including those that are generated by the concept of the survival 

of the fittest, are replaced by a new spiritual unity.  It added: 

“The primary question to be resolved is how the present world, with its 
entrenched pattern of conflict, can change to a world in which harmony and co-
operation will prevail. 
 
World order can be founded only on an unshakeable consciousness of the 
oneness of mankind, a spiritual truth which all the human sciences confirm. 
Anthropology, physiology, psychology, recognize only one human species, albeit 
infinitely varied in the secondary aspects of life. Recognition of this truth 
requires abandonment of prejudice--prejudice of every kind--race, class, colour, 
creed, nation, sex, degree of material civilization, everything which enables 
people to consider themselves superior to others.”38 
 
Speaking of the rejection of any concept of superiority amongst different 

humans, Esslemont wrote: 

“The Bahá'í doctrine of the unity of mankind strikes at the root of another cause 
of war, namely, racial prejudice. Certain races have assumed themselves to be 
superior to others and have taken for granted, on the principle of "survival of 

                                            

37
India: Transforming economic structures to build a more caring society, (8 January, 2025), 

<https://news.bahai.org/story/1775/> 
38

Universal House of Justice, The Promise of World Peace (1985) Baha’i Publishing Trust, 28 

IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 07 | July 2025 |     https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 39



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                     Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                                    Volume 08 || Issue 07 || July, 2025 || 

“A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual approach." 

 
 

 

the fittest," that this superiority gives them the right to exploit for their own 
advantage, or even to exterminate, weaker races. 
 
Many of the blackest pages in the world's history are examples of the pitiless 
application of this principle. According to the Bahá'í view people of every race 
are of equal value in the sight of God. All have wonderful innate capacities 
which only require suitable education for their development, and each can play 
a part, which, instead of impoverishing, will enrich and complete the life of all 
the other members of the body of humanity.”39 
 

The aim then of the Faith is to create a human brotherhood and sisterhood 
comprising all humanity under the one supreme Deity of all.  Abdu’l-Baha 
wrote: 
 
“Human brotherhood is, likewise, as clear and evident as the sun, for all are 
servants of one God, belong to one humankind, inhabit the same globe, are 
sheltered beneath the overshadowing dome of heaven and submerged in the sea 
of divine mercy. Human brotherhood and dependence exist because mutual 
helpfulness and cooperation are the two necessary principles underlying human 
welfare. This is the physical relationship of mankind. 
 
There is another brotherhood -- the spiritual -- which is higher, holier and 
superior to all others. It is heavenly; it emanates from the breaths of the Holy 
Spirit and the effulgence of merciful attributes; it is founded upon spiritual 
susceptibilities. This brotherhood is established by the Manifestations of the 
Holy One.” 40 
 

Thus if we are to achieve a just and peaceful global society and put an end to 

the wars and conflicts that plague the planet, it is argued that there has to be a 

new, uniting standard universally applied in human society.  It is essentially a 

spiritual approach that involves the recasting of that society and the individuals 

within it based on the new standard of the recognition of the oneness of 

humanity under the one supreme Deity of all.  In such a society, the concept of 

                                            
39

J E Esslemont, Baha’u’llah and the New Era, Baha’i Publishing Trust, (1923), 150.  He was an early 
Baha’i. 
40Abdu'l-Baha, talk recorded in The Promulgation of Universal Peace, Baha’i Publishing Trust, (28 
May 1912 at New York), 150. 

IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 07 | July 2025 |     https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 40



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                     Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                                    Volume 08 || Issue 07 || July, 2025 || 

“A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual approach." 

 
 

 

the survival of the fittest, as interpreted in a materialistic, self interested manner, 

is seen as not being acceptable.   

On this view being advanced, the standard cannot be that of the animal.  On the 
Baha’i view, it must be the standard advanced by the Founders of the great 
religions, the Divine Manifestations or Prophets.  This standard is the very 
antithesis of those characterized by the animal struggle for self-preservation and 
survival, and humans must choose between the two contrasting approaches, for 
they cannot be reconciled.  The ruling concept in a fair global society can no 
longer be survival of the fittest.  In its place, the principles of unity, concord and 
compassion must be elevated to a new pinnacle as taught by those Prophets. 
Violence and force, constraint and oppression, must one and all be condemned.  
Cooperation must receive a new emphasis in the place of competition. 
Individual initiative and excellence would still have a place, but tempered by 
the obligation to be of service and to act in the best interests of humanity. 
 
Comments in response 
 
Of course implementation of the Baha’i approach amounts to a huge challenge, 
not to be achieved even in the short term.  For many it may seem to be totally 
beyond practical achievement, given the fractured nature of present world 
society.  Many people may not be able to conceive of a global society that 
transcends the divisions and prejudices of that society at present, given the 
frailties of human nature.  That view is made even more compelling by the 
predominantly materialistic approach of many people to life, devoid of any 
spiritual content.  And given the many divisions existing among religions and 
sects, even those who claim to have strong religious or spiritual beliefs may not 
be able to surmount the thinking that prevails against a more universalistic and 
less sectarian approach to the future.   
 
It can be argued that both the materialistic and the religious or spiritual 
perspectives are strongly influenced by the prejudices and divisions that 
presently influence or control human thinking.  Thus the materialist may simply 
accept that human society is irretrievably and permanently burdened with a 
world of divided and contending nation states, each of which lays the emphasis 
on its own materialistic wellbeing and in which the individual members of each 
place the emphasis on their own materialistic well being.  Any radical change in 
the nature of the global society could be seen as a threat to their present 
priorities.  And many of those of areligious or spiritual inclination may well be 
content to preserve and defend the fractured or sectarian nature of their own 
religious or spiritual connections and their favoured ideas, hatreds, dogmas and 

IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 07 | July 2025 |     https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 41



 IJO- INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH  
( ISSN 2811-2466 )                                                                                                                     Graham Nicholson*  

https://ijojournals.com/                                                                    Volume 08 || Issue 07 || July, 2025 || 

“A Critique of Survival of the Fittest and the Human: a spiritual approach." 

 
 

 

traditions and be opposed to any concept of a comprehensive spiritual 
reconciliation in the wider interests of all humanity, even in the form of a new 
Divine revelation. 
 
This is not to diminish the extent of the challenge posed by the suggested 

creation of a new and much fairer and more united global society in which the 

concept of the survival of the fittest has a much reduced influence.  Of course 

the challenge to achieve this is immense.  But then it can be argued that 

humanity in its present very divided state is now facing unprecedented threats to 

its proper functioning and long term survival.  The threats are many, are serious 

and are increasingly global in nature, arguably only capable of being effectively 

addressed on a global, cooperative basis.   Both communism and capitalism are 

now often not seen as having all the right answers.  The concept of survival of 

the fittest, as applied in the present very divisive system of international 

relations, sometimes resulting in mass violence, may increasingly be recognised 

as being unsustainable.  In an increasingly globalised world, there may be some  

concern and perhaps seven pressure to find new solutions for the benefit of all 

humanity and for the planet as a whole.  There is at the same time an increasing 

interest among many in spiritual solutions.  In this scenario, the prospect of 

enormous trials and calamities arising to drastically disrupt the present global 

order, with resultant moves to replace it with a fairer and more harmonious 

global system, cannot be dismissed.  Radical change usually comes with great 

trials and challenges. 

When Bahá’u’lláh first proclaimed some decades ago, “This is the hour of the 

coming together of all the races and nations and classes. This is the hour of 

unity among the sons of men,” the prophecy was a far fetched ideal to the world 

of jealous politics and cultural isolation which received it. But it can be argued 

that the unity of humanity today is no mere social ideal. Arguably human 

secular and religious disunity and strife has (today)made it a social necessity.41 

 

                                            

41
 The Baha’i World, in Social Basis of World Unity, 21 April 1946, 

<https://bahaiworld.bahai.org/library/social-basis-of-world-unity/>,  

IJO JOURNALS

Volume 08 | Issue 07 | July 2025 |     https://ijojournals.com/index.php/ssh/index 42


