In the passage, society is the survival for the fittest; three arguments are presented to support the claim that if the poor, the disabled, and the aged in the society cannot survive on their own then there is no moral obligation on the part of the society to ensure their survival. The main premises of this passage purport that for one to survive in the society, they have to be fit and in line with expectations of nature. The second position supposes that these people should only survive only if they receive assistance from the government and failure to which they should not survive. The third position claims that if the aged cannot survive on their own, then there is little obligation that accrues to the society to ensure they survive.
In the first argument also known as the jungle rule, the passage takes a fallacy position in claiming that the society is survival for the fittest and just as in nature where the weak never survive, so too they should not be able to survive in the society. This is a naturalistic fallacy, which fails to show the connection between nature and the society. The fallacy also fails to show how these two are alike and why the rules of nature should apply in the society.
The second argument that the passage adopts claims that these people should only be able to survive only if they receive support and assistance from the government. The argument further notes that there is no obligation to the society to ensure that the weak survive. Although it is tempting to think that the weak in the society are the obligation of the government, the writer of this passage fails to show why the obligation accrues to the government and further does not confirm whether nature really fails to ensure the survival of the weak as his position so claims. The passage also fails to show why there should be the government who should tender for these weak people at all.
The third position tries to connect the dots of the two preceding positions and notes that if the poor, the disabled and the aged are not able to survive on their own, then there fails to be the obligation on the society to ensure that they survive. Having already noted the presence of the government and its role, the passage should have adopted a position to show instances when the people should fail to be supported or instances when the government should not play its role. In fact, the passage fails to show why the rules of the jungle should apply to society considering nature does not have a government of this own. Clearly, the passage is connecting a claim to a fallacy and this cannot hold up as a strong point.
In all the arguments put forward, there is no cogent argument that can be used as a basis to make the conclusion. However, if the second argument had shed some light on why even the government exists in the society, or explained whether nature fails to tend for the weak while giving specific case scenario instead of generalizing on all faucets of nature, probably this would have made a stronger case. The writer would also have erased doubts by showing the correlation between nature and the society by showing why the rules of the jungle should apply in the society.