Herbert Spencer's views on philanthropy are callous and very flawed. He believes that the poor and destitute should not be given the help they need because they have not earned it. Along with this, he states that "the quality of a society is lowered morally and intellectually, by the artificial preservation of those who are least able to take care of themselves". He proposes to solve this problem by letting the unfortunates die off so that humanity will be better as a whole. This suggestion is cruel and should never be considered. In addition, it is impossible to simply breed out the lower classes. There will always be a lower class as compared to the richest or the most intelligent. Although the lower class may become more prosperous and intelligent, so will the upper classes. Thus, comparably, there will be no progress.
             The true solution to the world's problems with poverty is to put surplus money to good use. It is true that taking from the rich and giving to the poor will yield nothing if the money is not handled correctly. But, well-directed money can do a world of good, and help humanity, not hurt it, as Spencer would argue. He says. "The effect is to produce, generation after generation, a greater unworthiness". Yes, this is a possibility when charity is thrown haphazardly at anyone and everyone. But it can be focused to where it will be needed, and used to it's fullest potential, so that society's burdens can become prosperous and useful.
             Spencer says, "the thoughtless giver stands but a degree above the drunkard who thinks only of today's pleasure and ignores tomorrow's pain". He later states, "doubtless it is in the order of things that parental affection, and regard of relatives, and the spontaneous sympathy of friends and even of strangers, should mitigate the pains which incapacity has to bear". These two statements directly contrad...