<P> Critics of theories of evolution have argued that "survival of the fittest" provides a justification for behaviour that undermines moral standards by letting the strong set standards of justice to the detriment of the weak . However, any use of evolutionary descriptions to set moral standards would be a naturalistic fallacy (or more specifically the is--ought problem), as prescriptive moral statements cannot be derived from purely descriptive premises . Describing how things are does not imply that things ought to be that way . It is also suggested that "survival of the fittest" implies treating the weak badly, even though in some cases of good social behaviour--co-operating with others and treating them well--might improve evolutionary fitness . </P> <P> Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin viewed the concept of "survival of the fittest" as supporting co-operation rather than competition . In his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution he set out his analysis leading to the conclusion that the fittest was not necessarily the best at competing individually, but often the community made up of those best at working together . He concluded that </P> <P> In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sense--not as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species . The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress . </P> <P> Applying this concept to human society, Kropotkin presented mutual aid as one of the dominant factors of evolution, the other being self - assertion, and concluded that </P>

Why is natural selection known as survival of the fittest