Darwinism and Death

Darwinism and Death: Devaluing Human Life in Germany 1859-1920
Author(s): Richard Weikart

Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 63, No. 2 (Apr., 2002), pp. 323-344
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3654200
Accessed: 01-03-2017 14:28 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3654200?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the History of Ideas
This content downloaded from 208.94.131.70 on Wed, 01 Mar 2017 14:28:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Darwinism and Death:
Devaluing Human Life in
Germany 1859-1920
Richard Weikart
The debate over the significance of Social Darwinism in Germany has spe-
cial importance, because it serves as background to discussions of Hitler's ide-
ology and of the roots of German imperialism and World War I.1 There is no
doubt that Hitler was a Social Darwinist, viewing history as a struggle for ex-
istence among unequal races. All Hitler scholars agree on this point, and it is
too obvious to deny when one reads Mein Kampf2 Whether Social Darwinism
contributed to imperialism and militarism is less clear, though some have ar-
gued it did, at least as a justification for them.3 Some Anglo-American writers
during and immediately after World War I blamed Social Darwinism for in-
flaming German militarism.4
1 Richard J. Evans, "In Search of German Social Darwinism: The History and Historiogra-
phy of a Concept," in Medicine and Modernity: Public Health and Medical Care in Nineteenth-
and Twentieth-Century Germany, ed. Manfred Berg and Geoffrey Cocks (Washington, 1997),
55-79. In this paper "Darwinism" refers exclusively to the theory of evolution by natural selec-
tion, although non-Darwinian theories of evolution, such as Lamarckism, were sometimes com-
patible with Darwinism.
2 See Eberhard Jiickel, Hitler 's Weltanschaung: A Blueprint for Power, tr. Herbert Arnold
(Middleton, Conn., 1972), ch. 5; Brigitte Hamann, Hitler 's Vienna: A Dictator 's Apprenticeship,
tr. Thomas Thornton (New York, 1999), 82-84, 102, 202ff; Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang
Wippermann, The Racial State. Germany, 1933-1945 (Cambridge, 1991); and (though one-
sided and should be used with caution) Daniel Gasman, The Scientific Origins of National So-
cialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League (London, 1971).
3WoodruffD. Smith, The Ideological Origins of Nazi Imperialism (New York, 1986), 145-
52 and ch. 5; Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Das deutsche Kaiserreich 1871-1918 (G6ttingen, 19752),
179-81, and Bismarck und der Imperialismus (Cologne, 19723); on Britain, see Bernhard Semmel,
Imperialism and Social Reform: English Social-Imperial Thought, 1895-1914 (Cambridge, 1960).
4 Paul Crook, Darwinism, War and History: The Debate over the Biology of War from the
"Origin of Species" to the First World War (Cambridge, 1994); also Vernon Kellogg, Head-
quarters Nights (Boston, 1917), 22-32; Robert Munro, From Darwinism to Kaiserism (Glasgow,
323
Copyright 2002 by Journal of the History of Ideas, Inc.
324 Richard Weikart
This discussion over b

form in particular has r
scholars insist that Darw
tive ethos in European p
varieties of Social Darwi
winian social thinkers s
ists and saw it as suppor
ety.6 Some scholars foc
Darwinian thinkers that o
carried the day in the la
that Darwinism produced
Another important deb
ity or incompatibility o
tional religion. The warf
conflict (often with sci
abandoned by historians
interactions of science an
have emphasized accomm
in harmony. As applied
receptivity of many Ch
1919); George Nasmyth, So

P. Chalmers Mitchell, Evolutio
Image (Freeport, N.Y., 1922;
5 The former include Richar
(New York, 1955); Hans-Giint
Problem," in Republic to Re
York, 1972); Mike Hawkins,
(Cambridge, 1997); Richard W
1895," JHI, 54 (1993), 469-88
tition in Darwin and Huxley,"
Himmelfarb, "The Varieties o
"In Search of German Social
winism: Historicizing the Biol
Weindling, Health, Race and
1945 (Cambridge, 1989), ch.
6 See Richard Weikart, Socia
Marx to Bernstein (San Fra
Darwinism," Rivista difolosf
7 Crook, Darwinism, War an
8 John Hedley Brooke, Scie
1991); Holmes Rolston III, Sc
Lindberg and Ronald Numb
Livingstone, D. G. Hart, and
spective (New York, 1999).
Darwinism and Death 325
theologians, to evolutionary th
fare thesis was clearly a cr
dationism can render the int
nineteenth century unintellig
by materialists and positivists
This essay will attempt to m
focusing on aspects of Darwi
date-not the issues of compet
or explicitly on religion, as is
dation, but how Darwinism im
and the significance of human
growth of materialism and p
matters of life and death. Many
ety to reevaluate its stance
infanticide, euthanasia, suicid
will see that leading Darwinis
ditional Judeo-Christian ethic
ing the Genesis creation story
The scientists and physician
and popularizing Darwinism i
Germany vigorously argued t
for religion, ethics, and social
twentieth centuries produced
who embraced it, and leading
view undermined traditional w
religion and ethics. Ernst Hae
late nineteenth and early twen
pect of Darwinism was the an
forth a complete revolution in
cian Ludwig Biichner, one of
theory in late nineteenth-cent
the anthropologist who had d
As the new conception of n

it will produce, I believe, on
of the greatest advances, whic
9 David N. Livingstone, Darwin 's F

cal Theology and Evolutionary Tho
Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Stu
win in Great Britain and America,
10 See Alfred Kelly, The Descent o
1860-1914 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1981
" Ernst Haeckel, Natiirliche Sch6p
326 Richard Weikart
At the same time a cla

enter our entire philos
The search by leading D

new ethical system to rep
the turn of the century
founding members of o
view of ethics, includin
1892; the Monist Leagu
tional Order for Ethics
gust Forel in 1908.
Ernst Haeckel was noto
tion of Judeo-Christian
not only wrote extensi
helped sponsor the Krup
Krupp endowed a lucrat
tion, "What do we learn
domestic political dev
Wilhelm Schallmayer, af
was the most important
This view [Darwinism]

ics. It led not only to
ethical commands and
to the demand for a p
views. 5
Haeckel and Schallmayer

paign against Judeo-Chr
prominent writer on ev
Darwin and Ethics" that
12 Ludwig Biichner to Herm

Handschriftenabteilung, S 2
13 Jiirgen Sandmann, Der B
Ethik bei Ernst Haeckel und
Darwin; Peter Emil Becker,
Gedanke: Wege in Dritte Reic
einer Weltanschauung: Die fr
1997), 37-38.
'4 Heinrich Ernst Ziegler, "Einleitung zu dem Sammelwerke Natur und Staat," in Natur und
Staat, I (bound with Heinrich Matzat, Philosophie der Anpassung) (Jena, 1903), 1-2.
'5 Wilhelm Schallmayer, Vererbung undA uslese im Lebenslaufder V6lker Eine Staatswissen-
schaftliche Studie auf Grund der neueren Biologie (Jena, 1903), ix-x.
ally good, and whatever leads

spite what Christianity or any
Nowhere was this shift in et
views relating to the value of
scene in the mid-nineteenth cen
dominant in European though
not always followed in practic
of innocent human life, and t
infanticide, abortion, and eve
enshrined in classical liberal h
according to John Locke, was
Until the second half of the n
twentieth century, both the C
liberals upheld the sanctity of
debate erupted over issues re
infanticide, euthanasia, aborti
role in this debate, for it alte
and value of human life, as w
claimed that they were creati
the meaning and value of life
Nowhere was this shift towa
dent than in the eugenics mo
simply applied Darwinian scie
Alfred Ploetz, Schallmayer, an
established on Darwinian foun
giene, the first eugenics society
most famous Darwinists in Ge
orary members. Many other
Most historians of the eugen
to Darwinism, and some have
ics, but little analysis of this ph
Kroll, and Kurt Bayertz, for e
man eugenics, "The 'ethics' of
the theory of evolution and s
the individual and the Enligh
16 Alexander Tille, "Charles Darwin

17 Edward J. Larson and Darrel W
Christian Tradition (Downers Grov
18 Some examples are found in M
Weltanschauung und Lebenswert (B
19 Peter Weingart, Jiirgen Kroll,
Eugenik und Rassenhygiene in Deut
328 Richard Weikart
The two leading expert

I, Hans-Walther Schmu
fluence on euthanasia d
attempt to promote a n
tively explained, "By gi
under the influence of
property, which-in con
weighed against other p
for a new Darwinized e
ogy.21 Another leading
Benzenh6fer, spends an
impact of Social Darwin
ment in the late nineteen
Indeed, some Darwinist
forthrightly challenged t
many were not willing
ber of prominent Darw
winism undermined the
of a view in which some
life than others. Schall
right of the stronger, th
forms over the less perf
history."23 Tille, whose
asserted, "Against the rig
invalid."24 Of course, no
have agreed with Schall
teenth century shared S
Even those Darwinists
statements generally sa
timeless truths transcen
Forel, for example, direct
The Sexual Question (19
understanding human s
that "our moral duties a
extent to all living bein
20 Hans Walter Schmuhl, R

tung zur Vernichtung 'leben
21 Michael Schwartz, " 'E
jahrshefteflir Zeitgeschicht
22 Udo Benzenh6fer, Der gu
(Munich, 1999), ch. 4.
23 Schallmayer, Vererbung
24 Alexander Tille, Volksdie
would be sacrificed to the inf

nied on the basis of Darwinian t
morality is in his view relati
struggle for existence. The "hig
the "inferior."
Haeckel, Forel, Ploetz, Tille,

among German Darwinists in
accepted ethical principles, in
of Darwinism brought about t
human life? First of all, Darw
human position in the cosmos a
this the question of "Man's P
including Haeckel, regarded th
ism.26 As Haeckel remarked
human life appears to us today
in an entirely different light
think it had changed? Stated s
was particularly valuable, nor
this point comes through in ma
father in a letter in 1864:
I share essentially your view

life and humans themselves
his personal existence appear
large chain, as a rapidly van
ence appears to me so horrib
see it as intended for nothing
Haeckel and many other Germ

soul dualism, which endued h
Haeckel and most German Dar
animals, and they often critic
significant qualitative distinct
25 August Forel, Die sexuelle Fra

26 Haeckel called this the "question
slehre im Verhiltnisse zur Gesamtwis
scher Naturforscher und Aerzte in
14.
27 Ernst Haeckel, Die Lebenswunder (Stuttgart, 1904), 445.

28 Ernst Haeckel to his father, 21 March 1864, quoted in Heinrich Schmidt, Ernst Haeckel.
Leben und Werke (Berlin, 1926), 203-4.
29 Haeckel, Natiirliche Sch6pfungsgeschichte (1868), 546; David Friedrich Strauss, Der
alte und der neue Glaube (Leipzig, 1872), 200-202.
330 Richard Weikart
Haeckel was not alone in

man life. In 1880 the zoo
explained the implications
popular audience in his ar
in the Darwinian World V
"tore down the boundarie
implications for the signi
We see that the Darwini

sentimental conception o
as an overestimate compl
human state (Staat) also,
must reach an even high
in it, through the destru
the more excellently en
progeny.... The state only
lent life at the expense of
Kossmann was thus attack

since he thought only some
wrote an entire book advo
Not only did the general
thought about the value of
tion by natural selection c
had emphasized the Malth
This meant that all species,
food supply, resulting in
chance to reproduce. Many
tion of organisms, includi
not really so important. In
at the University of Freibu
the continued existence

nothing; she [nature] ca
individual, after she has
on its seed to the future
without value.32
30 Robby Kossmann, "Die Be

schauung," Nord und Siid, 12
31 Robby Kossmann, Ziichtun
32 Alfred Hoche, Jahresring
In 1920 Hoche co-authored th

lebensunwerten Lebens (Perm
which lamented that present
are "completely worthless."33
Several leading Darwinists e
drew the same kind of conclusions from it. In his 1878 Darwinian diatribe
against socialist egalitarianism, Haeckel, basing his arguments forthrightly on
the Malthusian element in Darwinian theory, argued that most humans neces-
sarily perish in the struggle for existence. The more fit ones survive and repro-
duce, while the less fit die. "Many are called," he callously quipped, "but few
are chosen."34 The famous scientific materialist Ludwig Biichner also reflected
this Darwinian view of death. In 1882 he wrote, "The individual is nothing in
relation to the course [of nature], the species is everything; and history as well
as nature mark every step forward, even the smallest, with innumerable piles of
corpses."35 Friedrich von Hellwald, an ethnographer and leading Darwinian
social theorist in the 1870s, wrote in a major work on the history of human
culture that, based on Darwinism, "The right of the stronger is natural law."
The winners of the Darwinian struggle for existence-and he was primarily
thinking of humans here-"must stride across the corpses of the vanquished;
that is natural law."36 Thus for these and many other Darwinists death was no
longer an enemy, as Christianity portrayed it, but a force for progress.
Though Darwin would not have endorsed all these consequences others
drew from his theory, he did directly contribute to this new view that death is
beneficial and progressive. In The Origin of Species he stated, "Thus, from the
war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are
capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly
follows."37 He drove this point home with even greater effect with an example
from nature:
It may be difficult, but we ought to admire the savage instinctive ha-

tred of the queen-bee, which urges her instantly to destroy the young
queens her daughters as soon as born, or to perish herself in the com-
bat; for undoubtedly this is for the good of the community; and mater-
33 Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche, Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens:
Ihr Mass und Ihre Form (Leipzig, 1920), 49-62.
34 Ernst Haeckel, Freie Wissenschaft undfreie Lehre (Stuttgart, 1878), 73-74.
3 Ludwig Biichner, Die Macht der Vererbung und ihr Einfluss auf den moralischen und
geistigen Fortschritt der Menschheit (Leipzig, 1882), 100.
36 Friedrich Hellwald, Culturgeschichte in ihrer natiirlichen Entwicklung bis zur Gegenwart
(Augsburg, 1875), 27; "Der Kampf ums Dasein im Menschen- und V61kerleben," Das Ausland,
45 (1872), 105.
" Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (London,1968), 459.
332 Richard Weikart
nal love and maternal hat

is all the same to the in
Though Darwin backed o

not so restrained.
The idea expressed by

and Biichner (applying it
tant than the species wa
ists around the turn of th
collectivism and the dec
move in devaluing the l
valuable only to the exte
community, which might
depending on the how r
the principle.
August Weismann gave his own special spin to this when he argued that
death itself was an evolutionary adaptation. In an 1881 lecture and essay, "Ueber
die Dauer des Lebens" ("On the Duration of Life"), he argued that in examin-
ing the duration of biological life, "only the interest of the species comes into
consideration, not that of the individual." Once the individual has reproduced,
it "ceases to have value for the species," so it dies.39 A few years later he wrote
"Ueber Leben und Tod" ("On Life and Death"), an extensive essay expound-
ing upon the same idea. Here he again argued that death was beneficent for
multicellular species, since it rid the species of injured individuals, who were
"valueless and even harmful."40 Weismann did not directly mention humans in
these essays, but his arguments clearly presage the later focus of many eugeni-
cists, for whom the individual's interests are subservient to those of the spe-
cies. Schallmayer, for example, referred explicitly to Weismann's essay to sup-
port his eugenics.
Arnold Dodel, a botanist at the University of Zurich, expressed much the
same thought in his popular work promoting Darwinism, Moses oder Darwin?
(1889). After discussing the Malthusian population principle and the resultant
struggle for existence, he stated, "Death is the end of the individual, but it is
also the greatest benefactor for the whole. Without death [there is] no progress,
and progress is life; so the death of the individual is the condition of life for the
whole." He applied this principle to humans as well as other organisms.41
38 Ibid., 230.
39 August Weismann, "Ueber die Dauer des Lebens," in Aufsdtze iiber Vererbung und
Verwandte Biologische Fragen (Jena, 1892), 11, 27-28.
40 Weismann, "Ueber Leben und Tod," in ibid., 183-84.
41 Arnold Dodel, Moses oder Darwin? (Zurich, 1889), 90-91.
The notion that humans only

extent that they contribute to
reconceptualization of the val
ists stressed biological inequa
that biological traits varied co
ral selection could not occur w
mans, they emphasized biolog
"fit" (tiichtig) than others. In
necessity of inequality.42 The
demonstrated "that the inequa
leading Darwinian biologist, O
ticle refuting socialism, asser
abolition of the principle of
entire view of history and so
man rights and humanitarian
that "wants to treat everythin
the same way."45 Heinrich Er
tensively on the social applica
1900s, constantly stressed hu
Darwinian theory.46
The first German Darwinian
ity to persons with disabiliti
because of his participation i
University of Geneva. In 186
Humans, in which he argued t
of apes. In two different pass
disabled people ("idiots") were
tal abilities than they were to
is closer to an ape than to his or
cating infanticide, but later in
and supports his contention w
the civilized world to kill one's
this is considered an entirely
42 Ernst Haeckel, Freie Wissenscha

43 Wilhelm Preyer, "Briefe von Da
Rundschau, 67 (1891), 382.
44 Oscar Schmidt, "Darwinismus
289-90.
45 Hellwald, Culturgeschichte, 720.

46 Heinrich Ernst Ziegler, Die Naturwissenschaft und die Socialdemokratische Theorie
(Stuttgart, 1893), 158; "Zu den Kritikern miber das Jenenser Preisausschreiben," Politisch-
anthropologische Revue, 3 (1904-5), 438.
47 Carl Vogt, Vorlesungen iiber den Menschen (2 vols.; Giessen, 1863), I, 214, 256.
48 Ibid., I, 295.
334 Richard Weikart
of killing the weak and s

people are closer to animal
the eugenics movement.
Many German Darwinist
into the view that the val
tent on this point than Hae
entitled, "The Value of Life
had the same value. Altho
racial differences, he also
varied considerably.49 The
tral feature underpinning
Germany. Eugenicists con
their physical and mental t
movement, Alfred Ploetz, a
demned the egalitarian ide
lieved, were not consisten
within species." Schallmay
the unequal equal," he wro
Ideas about human inequ
but Darwinism seems to h
The Darwinian emphasis o
cialist circles.53 In fact mos
ment-Ploetz, Schallmay
Riidin-either considered
socialism. Alfred Blaschk
views of human inequality
socialist periodical: "Now
eminently aristocratic th
the inequality of everyon
cause, proceeding from th
the one better equipped fo
Because of their concern
inequality, many Darwini
49 Haeckel, Lebenswunder, ch
50 See Weingart et al, Rasse, B
National Efficiency: The Eugen
Bock, Zwangssterilisation im
5 Alfred Ploetz, Die Tiichtigke
194-96.
52 Schallmayer, Vererbung und Auslese, 371.

53 Michael Schwartz, Sozialistische Eugenik. Eugenische Sozialtechnologien in Debatten
und Politik der deutschen Sozialdemokratie, 1890-1933 (Bonn, 1995).
54 Alfred Blaschko, "Natiirliche Auslese und Klassentheilung," Die neue Zeit, 13,1 (1894-
95), 615.
what they considered its exces

mous hygienist Max von Gruber
eugenicists thought humanitari
uted to the biological degenera
and mentally ill would allow th
eugenicists explicitly founded t
cern with heredity, coupled wi
duced a world view in which hu
and mental health, or even abil
ductivity. The intelligent and str
the mentally and physically ha
One does not have to read ver
fore it becomes apparent that the
They constantly refer to the m
lower, useless, burdens to socie
inferior (minderwertig), literal
in eugenics discourse. Erwin Ba
porter of eugenics, for example
drew distinctions between peo
rior (hochwertig).55 Similar exp
psychiatrists, and physicians.
with physical or mental disabil
value. For example, Hugo Ribbe
Bonn, wrote:
The care for individuals who f

tally and physically, who for
are a burden merely, persons o
useless to humanity, and inde
Ribbert's rhetoric may seem sh

place among eugenicists in the
many. Alfred Grotjahn, profess
cial hygiene, and later a sociali
biologically "inferior" elements,
tion was physically or mentally
Another measuring rod used b
economic productivity. Forel c
5 Erwin Baur, Einflihrung in die exp

56 Hugo Ribbert, Heredity, Disease
York, 1918), 57.
51 Alfred Grotjahn, "Das Problem de
336 Richard Weikart
according to their abilit

as one who contributes
cists lamented the econom
capped. In 1911 a promi
the best essay on the to
society?" The instructio
by the biologically "infe
Many of these Darwini
that society should cont
ing ways to hinder them
them drew more radical conclusions and advocated active measures to elimi-
nate those deemed inferior. These measures included infanticide, abortion, and
euthanasia, both voluntary and involuntary. As the leading Darwinist in Ger-
many, Haeckel was a pioneer in this regard. Already in the second edition of
his work, Natiirliche Sch6pfungsgeschichte (1870), he favorably mentioned
the ancient Spartan practice of killing weak and sickly infants, implying that he
advocated this practice. He wrote,
If someone would dare to make the suggestion, according to the ex-

ample of the Spartans and Redskins, to kill immediately after birth the
miserable and infirm children, to whom can be prophesied with assur-
ance a sickly life, instead of preserving them to their own harm and the
detriment of the whole community, our whole so-called "humane civi-
lization" would erupt in a cry of indignation.60
In a book dedicated to his friend Haeckel, Hellwald likewise favorably dis-

cussed the Spartan practice.61
Later Haeckel even more explicitly argued in favor of infanticide. His ar-
guments are quite interesting, for he used evolutionary scientific arguments to
support his case. Haeckel believed that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, mean-
ing that as organisms develop from a single cell to adulthood, they allegedly
traverse the evolutionary stages of their ancestors. Haeckel argued that new-
born infants were still in an evolutionary stage equivalent to our animal ances-
tors; thus killing them was no different than killing other animals. In the case of
handicapped infants, he wrote, "a small dose of morphine or cyanide would not
only free this pitiable creature itself, but also its relatives from the burden of a
58 August Forel, Die sexuelle Frage, 457.

59 "Preisausschreiben," Die Umschau. 15 (1911), 127-28.
60 Ernst Haeckel, Natiirliche Schopfungsgeschichte (18702), 155.
61 Hellwald, Culturgeschichte, 276.
long, worthless and painful e

plicit as Haeckel, he agreed th
times babies never develop fu
Haeckel used similar argume
tific fact that human life beg
bryo is recapitulating earlier
have the full value of adult hum
which humans descended. He
newborn child, is completely
chine,' just like a lower verte
different from.killing an anima
Haeckel vigorously opposed t
ity, so for him suicide was als
retical question but had pract
ried a dose of poison in case of
wage a protracted struggle wi
suicide-Selbstmord (self-mu
all, but rather "self-redempti
ing of human life against its
their misery, Haeckel also exp
wise we have the right-or if
of our fellow humans, if stro
existence unbearable and if they
Defending suicide was also no
an Austrian sociologist famou
appealed to Darwinism as th
world view. In his early work
sian principle of overpopulatio
in human conflict. In Social P
Darwinian foundations to argu
To comply with the obvious w

a perceptible voice nature ca
and weary of life. To follow
62 Quote in Ernst Haeckel, Ewigk

und Entwicklungslehre (Berlin, 1917
152-55; and Lebenswunder, 22, 135
63 Dodel, Moses oder Darwin?, 72
64 Haeckel, Lebenswunder, 375.
65 Ernst Haeckel to Frieda von Usla
Franziska van Altenhausen. Ein Rom
den Jahren 1898-1903 (Leipzig, 192
66 Haeckel, Lebenswunder, 128, 13
338 Richard Weikart
people filled with zeal

good deed, for there ar
many.67
When Gumplowicz wrote this, he was nearing the end of his life, for he was
diagnosed with cancer. Before these words were published, Gumplowicz and
his blind wife had ended their lives together with cyanide.
Other prominent Darwinian thinkers agreed with Haeckel's and Gumplo-
wicz's view on suicide. Bartholomius Carneri, a close friend of Haeckel who
wrote extensively on evolutionary ethics, wrote: "The right for a person to kill
oneself cannot be disputed. It is his life that he forfeits."68 Though rejecting
infanticide and euthanasia, Christian von Ehrenfels, a Darwinian ethical phi-
losopher at the University of Graz best known for founding Gestalt psychol-
ogy, believed that suicide should be made easier to allow the incurably sick and
miserable to end their own lives.69
Not only did Haeckel justify infanticide, abortion, and assisted suicide or
voluntary euthanasia, but he also supported involuntary euthanasia for the men-
tally ill. He condemned the idea that all human life should be preserved, "even
when it is totally worthless." He complained that many mentally and some
physically ill people are burdens to society. We could spare ourselves much
pain and money by just giving them a shot of morphine. Haeckel proposed that
a commission of physicians make the determination on each case to safeguard
against abuse, but the individual being reviewed would have no voice.70
Haeckel was not the only Darwinist advocating infanticide and euthanasia.
In 1910 Forel made clear what was often implied in many of his earlier works
on eugenics by explicitly advocating killing the physically and mentally handi-
capped. "Is it really a duty of conscience to help with the birth and even the
conception of every cripple, who descends from thoroughly degenerate par-
ents?" he asked. "Is it really a duty to keep alive every idiot (even every blind
idiot), every most wretched cripple with three-fourths of the brain damaged?"
He answered with a resounding, No!71
In the only major book Ploetz wrote (1895) he described a utopian society
in which weak or deformed children would be killed immediately after birth.
This eugenics utopia would even kill all twins, all children born after the sixth
67 Ludwig Gumplowicz, Sozialphilosophie im Umnriss (1910), in Emil Brix (ed.), Ludwig

Gumplowicz oder die Gesellschaft als Natur (Vienna, 1986), 272-73.
68 Bartholomaius Carneri, Der moderne Mensch: Versuch iiber Lebensfulhrung, Volksausgabe
(Stuttgart, 1901), 142.
69 Christian von Ehrenfels, "Gedanken fiber die Regeneration der Kulturmenschheit" (pri-
vately published, 1901; available at the Forschungsstelle und Dokumentationszentrum ftir
Osterreichische Philosophie, Graz, Austria), 41.
70 Haeckel, Lebenswunder, 134-35.
71 August Forel, Kulturbestrebungen der Gegenwart (Munich, 1910), 26-27.
child, and all children born to

because these people (so Ploet
tally inferior.72 Did Ploetz act
this would be an incredibly infl
Ploetz never expressed these v
ambiguous position that same
journal. In this essay he first
beneficial. After making this
spite the advantages, killing t
eficial, because it would wreak
book and article, it is difficul
fanticide. However, the book se
demonstrates that Ploetz's pri
whose welfare does not enter
Only a few other eugenic
Schallmayer did not explicitly
peans' criticism of Chinese in
eugenicist in Germany, the p
to rethink their life-saving p
represent, she averred, a "los
"must no longer blindly seek to
ask himself, in individual case
gards the [human] race."" She
beneficent deed and hoped th
of handicapped infants.
The first significant published
nasia occurred in the journal o
Haeckel in 1906 to promote h
against dualistic philosophies
last throes of a terminal illn
League support a euthanasia b
destroying belief in an after
Gerkan's proposal supported o
individual to the proper legal au
cians verified that the patient
72 Ploetz, Die Tiichtigkeit unsrer R

73 Alfred Ploetz, "Ableitung einer
jahresschriftfiir wissenschaftliche
74 Schallmayer, Vererbung und Au
75 Agnes Bluhm, "Eugenics and O
cated to the First International Eug
340 Richard Weikart
Gerkan's article promp

euthanasia. Wilhelm Os
recruited as president o
ously, defended Gerkan
thanasia, which he cons
tulate, the energetic impe
Caring for suffering fam
aging and thus wastes e
perative superseded the p
Two other physicians in
expressed their support
rebuttal to Gerkan's vie
ing for the sanctity of
should be eligible for eu
the practical implement
man life.79 No Monist a
vidual had intrinsic value.
The early debate over abortion in Germany was, of course, not always
overtly linked to Darwinism, though sometimes it was. The jurist Otto Ehinger
recycled Haeckel's argument that the human embryo is recapitulating its evo-
lutionary development and is therefore equivalent to a more primitive animal
before birth. He used this line of reasoning in an article in Helene St6cker's
journal, Die neue Generation, to call for the government to lift legal prohibi-
tions on abortion. He further argued,
Nature shows us with thousands of examples, even in the process of

conception, that it wastes millions of seeds [Lebenskeime], in order to
allow one of them to develop fully [krdftig]. Isn't a mother, especially
under present economic relations, merely following its example, if she-
perhaps with distress of conscience and pain--destroys her seed, be-
cause the children she already has must starve and waste away with an
enlargement of the family.8"
76 Roland Gerkan, "Euthanasie," Das monistische Jahrhundert, 2 (1913), 169-74; Wilhelm

Ostwald, "Euthanasie," Das monistische Jahrhundert, 2 (1913), 337-41.
77 Eugen Wolfsdorf, "Euthanasie und Monismus," Das monistische Jahrhundert, 2 (1913),
305-9.
78 Dr. A. Braune, "Euthanasie und Arzt," Das monistische Jahrhundert, 2 (1913-14), 871-
73; Friedrich Siebert, in Heinrich Schmidt (ed.), Was wir Ernst Haeckel verdanken (2 vols.;
Leipzig, 1914), I, 339-51.
79 Wilhelm B6rner, "Euthanasie (Eine Erwiderung)," Das monistische Jahrhundert, 2 (1913),
249-54.
80 Otto Ehinger, "Der Grund der Abtreibungsbestrafung," Die neue Generation, 8 (1912),
237-38.
The biggest impact of Darwini

rectly through eugenics discour
on Darwinism. Eugenics provide
legalization of abortion. Most
St6cker, Adele Schreiber, Henri
others-were avid Darwinian m
opportunity to improve the con
prove the human race and contr
sician and eugenics advocate (wh
SPD during the Weimar Republ
and Social Development," argued
to Darwinism, and he approved
others.81
Lily Braun, a leading figure in the German women's movement and in the
Social Democratic Party before World War I, likewise embraced a world view
heavily influenced by Darwinism. She became a strong advocate of both eu-
genics and abortion. She apparently favored infanticide, too, for once she scolded
a doctor for not preventing the beating of a child with Downs syndrome with
the following words: "If you physicians are not compassionate enough to free
such children from the burden of life on this earth, you should at least protect
them against cruelties."82
Even those Darwinists who did not favor complete legalization of abortion
often did not do so because of any regard for the life of the individual fetus.
Most eugenicists who fought against abortion did so because they thought that
easy access to abortion would lead to a population decline and would contrib-
ute to the biological degeneration of society. Their concern was not with the
individual life, but with improving the biological quality and thus strength of
the German population as a whole. Agnes Bluhm, the most prominent woman
physician in the German eugenics movement, opposed abortion under most
circumstances, since she believed that population growth was healthy for soci-
ety. She further acknowledged that the fetus was not merely part of the mother
but deserved protection as a unique individual. However, she favored the legal-
ization of abortion under certain conditions, such as a mother's health prob-
lems, rape, or in case the offspring might be expected to be "inferior." She
persuaded the League of German Women's Organizations to adopt her position
on abortion.83 Julius Tandler, a Viennese physician, agreed with Bluhm that
developing embryos are not part of the mother, but rather unique individuals.
However, he also favored legalization of abortion, but only if a commission of
81 Eduard David, "Darwinismus und soziale Entwicklung," in Max Apel (ed.), Darwin, 59.
82 Alfred Meyer, The Feminism and Socialism of Lily Braun (Bloomington, 1985), 147.
83 Agnes Bluhm, "Frauenbewegung, Strafrecht, und Rassenhygiene," Archiv fir Rassen-
und Gesellschaftsbiologie, 6 (1909), 134-39.
342 Richard Weikart
physicians (not the moth

society should decide on
trist at the University o
movement to support ab
tion to abortion by man
were suspected of possib
even encouraged to abort
Of course, not all Darwin
life, and by no means di
nor euthanasia. In fact s
that one-third of the Ge
killing:
war, euthanasia,
measures would be able
generations, not in the
him to campaign for po
insisted that all humans h
to benefit the next genera
We must also remembe
currents opposing all ap
to ethical and social th
gians, both dominating th
cal disjunction between
distinction between the
senschaften (human sc
theory, while denying th
affairs of life.88 Howeve
included most of the bi
Darwinism, generally st
particularly Darwinian th
pact ethical ideals.
It was not merely Darw
gether with the rise of
84 Doris Byer, Rassenhygie

kratischen Machtdispositivs
85 Ernst Riidin, "Rassenhyg
Rassen- und Gesellschaftsbio
86 Alfred Grotjahn, "Wahr
papers, 303, at Humboldt Uni
87 Ehrenfels, "Gedanken," 4
88 Klaus Christian K6hnke,
between Idealism and Positiv
Nature Lost? Natural Science
(Cambridge, 1992).
many, that contributed to the a

right to life. Darwinism was
century materialism, however
The leading scientific materi
Vogt and Ludwig Biichner, en
became its chief apostles, alo
phy was kin to scientific mat
ism also provided materialist
that helped undercut Judeo-C
both benefitted from and contr
late nineteenth-century Germ
In sum, many leading Darwi
nineteenth and early twentiet
dards, on body-soul dualism,
them in direct conflict with
they waged as a contest betwe
the extent of supernatural inter
but the Darwinists' assault on
human life, intensified the conf
include discussions about ethi
life in their accounts of the s
My study also reveals a new
ism. Much ink has been spilt
competitive ethos in the late
examined other ways that Dar
eth-century thought about hum
Darwinists trumpeted the new t
"Man's Place in Nature." Darw
cations were, but those with
stripped humans of their spec
Another reason this line of i
vides crucial background to th
of his closest associates was h
ics, and euthanasia in the first
scholars of Nazism recognize.
these ideas with sterilization l
Also the Darwinian devaluing
physicians, scientists, and oth
there was no direct path from
Sheila Faith Weiss is surely ri
'valuable' and 'valueless,' to
nable to manipulation for som
344 Richard Weikart
eugenicists did, was to em

to the slave-labor and de
It is important to unde
human life was not a un
active euthanasia program
contribute to the eutha
Darwinian thought was
movement,90 and Ian Do
nasia movement substan
mained small throughout
life for the disabled led n
measures, such as compu
did this Darwinian deval
gram, and there it was n
Rather it occurred in Ge
winian world view, in w
reins of power and-toge
could override the scrup
life.
California State University, Stanislaus.
89 Weiss, Race Hygiene and National Efficiency, 158.

90 Bruce Fye, "Active Euthanasia: An Historical Survey of Its conceptual Origins and Intro-
duction into Medical Thought," Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 52 (1978), 497-500.
91 Ian Dowbiggin, Mixed Motives: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America (Oxford,
forthcoming).
92 Joachim Mfiller, Sterilisation und Gesetzgebung bis 1933 (Husum, 1985); Gunnar Broberg
and Nils Roll-Hansen (ed.), Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark,
Sweden, Norway, and Finland (East Lansing, Mich., 1996); William H. Schneider, Quality and
Quantity: The Quest for Biological Regeneration in Twentieth-Century France (Cambridge,
1990); Diane B. Paul, Controlling Human Heredity, 1865 to the Present (Atlantic Highlands,
N.J., 1995).
93 See Robert Proctor, Racial Hygiene (Cambridge, 1988); Arthur L. Caplan (ed.), When
Medicine Went Mad: Bioethics and the Holocaust (Totowa, N.J., 1992); Michael H. Kater, Doc-
tors under Hitler (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1989); Robert Lifton, The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing
and the Psychology of Genocide (New York, 1986).

Darwinism and Death

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Darwinism and Death

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Darwinism and Death: Devaluing Human Life in Germany 1859-1920

Author(s): Richard Weikart

Copyright 2002 by Journal of the History of Ideas, Inc.

This discussion over b

1919); George Nasmyth, So

As the new conception of n

9 David N. Livingstone, Darwin 's F

At the same time a cla

The search by leading D

This view [Darwinism]

Haeckel and Schallmayer

12 Ludwig Biichner to Herm

ally good, and whatever leads

16 Alexander Tille, "Charles Darwin

The two leading expert

20 Hans Walter Schmuhl, R

would be sacrificed to the inf

Haeckel, Forel, Ploetz, Tille,

I share essentially your view

Haeckel and many other Germ

25 August Forel, Die sexuelle Fra

27 Ernst Haeckel, Die Lebenswunder (Stuttgart, 1904), 445.

Haeckel was not alone in

We see that the Darwini

Kossmann was thus attack

the continued existence

30 Robby Kossmann, "Die Be

In 1920 Hoche co-authored th

It may be difficult, but we ought to admire the savage instinctive ha-

nal love and maternal hat

Though Darwin backed o

The idea expressed by

The notion that humans only

42 Ernst Haeckel, Freie Wissenscha

45 Hellwald, Culturgeschichte, 720.

of killing the weak and s

52 Schallmayer, Vererbung und Auslese, 371.

what they considered its exces

The care for individuals who f

Ribbert's rhetoric may seem sh

5 Erwin Baur, Einflihrung in die exp

according to their abilit

If someone would dare to make the suggestion, according to the ex-

In a book dedicated to his friend Haeckel, Hellwald likewise favorably dis-

58 August Forel, Die sexuelle Frage, 457.

long, worthless and painful e

To comply with the obvious w

62 Quote in Ernst Haeckel, Ewigk

people filled with zeal

67 Ludwig Gumplowicz, Sozialphilosophie im Umnriss (1910), in Emil Brix (ed.), Ludwig

child, and all children born to

72 Ploetz, Die Tiichtigkeit unsrer R

Gerkan's article promp

Nature shows us with thousands of examples, even in the process of

76 Roland Gerkan, "Euthanasie," Das monistische Jahrhundert, 2 (1913), 169-74; Wilhelm

The biggest impact of Darwini

physicians (not the moth

84 Doris Byer, Rassenhygie

many, that contributed to the a

eugenicists did, was to em

California State University, Stanislaus.

89 Weiss, Race Hygiene and National Efficiency, 158.

Você também pode gostar