It is evident that there were four philosophies in the 19th century, which changed the way human services were delivered in large measures. One of the philosophies was; individualism which was characterized by hard work as the road to success and poverty was a sign of individual weakness. Individualists enhance the exercise of a person's goals and desires. The idea here is the value of independence and self-reliance, philosophers went ahead to posit that the interests of a person should achieve maximum attention over those of the society or state at large (Ellen Frankel Paul, 2012) .
More so, another philosophy that changed the way human services were delivered was; laissez faire. In this, it paid so much attention to economic concepts that focused on societal, rather than individuals and responsibilities. It further argued that economies would function efficiently with minimal government interference.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Consequently, we had social Darwinism which advocated for the idea that, any attempts to help the less fortunate people in the society would impede progress and facilitate the survival of the unfit. This philosophy was highly linked to survival for the fittest, whereby those who would withstand harsh and unbearable conditions will survive, unlike the rest.
Lastly, we had the government intervention, whereby the government was responsible for taking good care of its citizens at all times. It was also involved with regulatory measures applied by the particular government so as to affect or come into contact with rulings made by groups, people, or business firms about the social and economic activities. It is also characterized by the government’s coercion to change pre-existing social situations.
Of the above philosophies, each had an impact on the way human services were delivered. With individualism, one of its pros was that an individual was in a position to do everything he/she wishes to do and the amount of stress was less since you only worry about yourself. However, one of the weaknesses of this philosophy was that it ended up messing up a relationship. With laissez-faire philosophy, there was the element of autonomy which brought about motivation among members of a community. One downside of this philosophy was that poor services would at times emerge due to minimal supervision from the management and elements of production. In social Darwinism view, individuals are coerced to be at their best for them to remain competitive and relevant in the society and marketplace. Best and worst being subjective is one of the cons with this philosophy. Lastly, too much non-directed government intervention brings down the economy while the vice versa benefits citizens.
Out of the discussed philosophies, the best to be accommodated in my opinion would be the social Darwinism which advocates for the best of the best to survive (Gordon, 2009) . With the new paradigm shift of embracing technological advancements, the world has engaged another gear of competition which only regards those who beat others in all that they deal in. People are to be informed of the need to be at the top of their games, services as well as ideas. With the best ideas, then they can be incorporated as one package t bring about development and best delivery of services to human beings.
In conclusion, these policies have affected us in the way we treat the less fortunate in some ways as seen in the discussion. Laissez-faire policy has been in practice to intimidate the less fortunate, people who are viewed not to have succeeded in the education system are seen to be unable to work on their own but with close supervision. With social Darwinism, those who fail to compete favorably and offer the best services are seen to be irrelevant and obsolete. Individualism has disadvantaged the less fortunate since the material gain is used as a measure for growing relationships.
References
Ellen Frankel Paul, F. D. (2012). Natural Rights Individualism and Progressivism in American Political Philosophy: Volume 29, Part 2. Cambridge University Press.
Gordon, S. (2009). The Influence of Social Darwinism on Progressive Era Political Thought and Policy. Ohio State University.
