In the context of nations, social Darwinism can be used to argue that strong nations are obligated to dominate weaker nations. This is because, according to this theory, the strong nations are more likely to be successful and survive in the competition between nations. The weaker nations, on the other hand, are seen as less fit and are therefore less likely to survive.
There are many arguments against social Darwinism. One argument is that it is simply not true that the strongest nations are always the most successful. There are many examples of weak nations that have survived and even thrived in the face of much stronger opponents.
Another argument against social Darwinism is that it is based on a very simplistic view of human society. It assumes that societies are simply collections of individuals who are in competition with each other. However, human societies are much more complex than this. They are made up of many different groups and institutions that interact with each other in a variety of ways.
In conclusion, there are many reasons to reject social Darwinism as a valid theory for explaining the development and organization of human society. It is simply not true that the strongest nations are always the most successful, and it is based on a very simplistic view of human society.