To think that because something is natural makes that something good. Social Darwinist ( should be social Spencerism ) made this fundamental fallacy.

They didn't.

What you are speaking of is called social Darwinism and it should have been called social Spencerism because Herbert Spencer mistakenly applied the theory of evolution by natural selection to social theory and thus committed the naturalistic fallacy and Lamarckism at the same time.

Just because something is natural does not mean it is good and how this " superior " social class viewed hereditary was straight out of Lamarck.

Darwin wanted nothing to do with this mistaken notion.

They didn't.

What you are speaking of is called social Darwinism and it should have been called social Spencerism because Herbert Spencer mistakenly applied the theory of evolution by natural selection to social theory and thus committed the naturalistic fallacy and Lamarckism at the same time.

Just because something is natural does not mean it is good and how this " superior " social class viewed hereditary was straight out of Lamarck.

Darwin wanted nothing to do with this mistaken notion.

Social Darwinism didn't shape Carnegie's business practices. Carnegie began to worship Herbert Spencer after he became wealthy, and he was comforted by Spencer's views, feeling that they justified what he had done, but he ignored some of Spencer's theories and became a philanthropist after he retired. He provided pensions for his workers and supported the 5 day work week, which Spencer would not have, although his actual philanthropy involved building libraries and contributing to them. Carnegie had begun life poor and believed that people could improve their situation in life. That wasn't part of Spencer's philosophy. Darwin didn't actually coin survival of the fittest, and his book On the Origin of the Species came out after Spencer's. Spencer expanded Darwin's theory of evolution to connect it to society. The problem with that is that all people are in the same stage of evolution, and no one is any more evolved than anyone else, some are just more greedy. So evolution really has little or nothing to do with social Darwinism, and probably should be called laissez faire Spencerism.

Rockefeller said that the growth of large business (monopolies) was survival of the fittest and that some people were destined to live off the hard work of others. So it is safe to say that Social Darwinism didn't shape their business practices, but that they used it to justify them.