The use of the term eugenics is debatable. For example, the thread starter calls abortion eugenics, but this use of the term is highly controversial.

Perhaps we should hammer down what the word means and move from there.

The use of the term eugenics is debatable. For example, the thread starter calls abortion eugenics, but this use of the term is highly controversial.

Perhaps we should hammer down what the word means and move from there.

Of the many arguments against the practice of eugenics, there are two I find convincing.

In the first place, eugenics sees individual human beings as another object in the world to be manipulated at will, and denies not only the existence of the selfhood, but its value.
In the second place, it assumes its criteria for intervention is either true or "really" beneficial to some "advancement." This assumption is without warrant. Moreover, it also assumes that whatever criteria of selection is chosen will actually have the desired consequences, but this is by no means certain, and it might be the case that different or even opposite effects will be caused by the eugenic action.

Of the many arguments against the practice of eugenics, there are two I find convincing.

In the first place, eugenics sees individual human beings as another object in the world to be manipulated at will, and denies not only the existence of the selfhood, but its value.

In the second place, it assumes its criteria for intervention is either true or "really" beneficial to some "advancement." This assumption is without warrant. Moreover, it also assumes that whatever criteria of selection is chosen will actually have the desired consequences, but this is by no means certain, and it might be the case that different or even opposite effects will be caused by the eugenic action.

well vasska gives some defentions which are useful and thats pretty much what I ment. I didn't call abortion eugenics, only the abortion of babies with genetic defects, which seems to fit the defenition above. It is a form of Eugenics, but the question is more is it an acceptable form of it?
Hope that clears things up.

Still.. I'm reading Stephen Hawkings right now and despite his disabilities he managed to climb up to being among the respected scholars. But of course him being a sole exeption.

Sole exception? Albert Einstein had a learning disability- found maths hard, couldn't express himself easily in writing and didn't speak until he was three.
Edision had polio
Washington was could barely read or write, probably due to very sever dyselxia. Byron had a club foot, Beethoven was deaf, Rooservelt was paraylsed from the waist down, Malthus had a cleft pallate and Darwin had OCD.

Its amazing just how wide spread eugenics became? and still continues to be. I think one of the most obvious examples is the Nazi's. But I don't even think calling the eradication of the Jews eugenics,? it seems more like wholesale murder. The Nazi's had inflicted a very intrusive eugenics program on the german people for many years before the war, estimated to have affected more than a few hundred thousand people. But if you think about it eugenics shows up all throughout history. Look at the Latins and the Etruscans. Interesting enough, Sweden had instituted a sterilization program aimed at reducing genetic diseases and disorders during the 1930's all the way up to the 1970's!

But I think the nature of eugenics is rooted in many factors. I know that during the 17th to early 20th century, there was a major push in government to stem social degeneration. In this, people equated mental problems with systemic social problems and poverty. America had a very bad exploration with eugenics in the late 19th, early 20th century. Most famous is a case known as Buck v. Bell (1924) which in many ways was responsible for the justification of female sterilization. Oliver Homes was famously quoted as saying that "three generations of imbeciles is enough" which seems like a very ridiculous comment for a justice to say as it is terribly inductive.

But from what I remember from a bioethics course I took as an undergraduate, the parallels from this decision extend not only to religious conservatism, but also to philosophical discourse as well. Jehovah, as well as Plato of all people established that 3 generations was the necessary criterion for establishing a guilt by association. Very much ingrained in our culture and faith is the issue of eugenics.

I have always thought that eugenics occurs when conservativism has gone too far. But unfortunately, it seems as though if you put eugenics up to a utilitarian assumption, it is a rational course to take. That may be why issues that even border on the line of eugenic theory are extensively problematic.

But if anybody is interested, there is a very good article by Jonathan Glover on Eugenics and the Nazi experience that combines not only what other people take into consideration when they think about eugenics like Darwin and Nietzsche, but a breakdown of ethical standards they had while committing these acts. Also, after reading this, to get the perspective of the other side (namely that of the jews, gypsies, etc.), take a look over of "Mans search for meaning" by Victor Frankel.

This is the Glover article in pdf format. Very good read, especially if you have an interest in transhumanistic principles.

http://www.hum.utah.edu/~bbenham/2510%20Spring%2008/Glover-Eugenics%20Lesssons%20from%20Nazi.pdf

Some i did not know about, but still. Of all the people, and we know that is quite a lot, we have been and are disabled to this day we can only name a few of them.

Perhaps, but should we not be trying to create a society that can accomadate these people rather than suggesting that they themselves should be removed?

Please not that I'm not speaking my opinion this but are just investing in the conversation. Having said that; it's an fact handicapped are a burden to society, adapting toward their needs is social but does not hold up on our modern day values. Only those directly attached to the disabled will help them, apart from a kindhearted stranger, or social (peer) pressure.

Handicapped people by no means are a waste of skin like some people want us to believe, but still they are a burden to modern society. Another effect of us disliking handicapped people is the fact that nobody wants to be one. Ever felt disgusted with other feelings like guilt mixed in by a tramp? That's us not wanting to be it. Avoiding it.

By eugenics you can remove handicapped people by tackling the problems themselves (diseases) instead of the symptoms (the handicapped). But only if you don't fall into the pit of killing those who already exist, like almost everybody does.

I'm shifting towards eugenics in a somewhat transhumanist sense here.

But if we had decided to act this way in the case of, say, steven hawkings (rare exception though he may be), would we not have suffered a severe loss? Should we prejudge how a persons life would be like? Is it not better to wait till a cure for disability emerges as opposed to a prevention?