Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Eugenics-your opinions

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Eugenics-your opinions

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

In the earliar half of the twentiath century Eugenics was official government policy not just in nations like Nazi Germany but also in every major western nation, including the USA and Britian. Few at the time opposed it, and it was only after the horrors of world war II and its links with the halocaust that it was stopped. Now with genetic engineering on humans a realistic concept, abortions of disabled babies and euthanasia, we are looking at an admitidally less autharatarian, but nevertheless real, form of eugenics emerging again.
So in its old context was it evil? Unscientific?
What of this new form? Is it better? But still morally questionable? Is it more informed?
I think that this modern version is at root no better, but I would be intersted in your views.

@avatar6v7,

... one way of looking at eugenics is as self-domestication - "domestication" here referring to the selective breeding of plants and animals to suit human desires ... as such, the technique pre-dates science ... where science can come into play here is during the selection of individuals to mate and/or in the selection of genes to cross into new individuals ... eugenics is "scientific" only to the extent that science is applied in this way (which it often isn't, as in the case when "racial purity" is the rallying cry - as any geneticist can tell you, reduction of genetic diversity can significantly reduce the adaptive capabilities of humankind) ... whether or not eugenics is ethical/moral is another question entirely (the same being true of domestication in general) ... as a matter of human rights, I think we should seriously limit/outlaw any enforcement of eugenics policies by a "well meaning" government ... but that still leaves individual choice: should we disallow consenting parents from pre-determining the color of their child's eyes? from ensuring that a pathological genetic predisposition of one parent is not passed on to the child? from terminating a fetus with pathological mutations? - I don't have an answer for that ...

@avatar6v7,

Eugenics has gotten a pretty bad name due to the misinterpretation, misuse and misunderstanding of it. Eugenics, Darwinism and Nietszche's Ubermench have all been called the root of Nazism, or any other "non-moral" group that is active this day and age. But neither of them are primarily bad.

Eugenics in it's own way does not endorse genocide, etnocide, infanticide or other form of killing selected groups of people, like Hitler killed the Jews, and the shootout in Mumbai recently was primary on foreigners. However it is often used in this form by facists, racists and militia or government and thats why eugenics is highly ethical these days.

Eugenics is a highly moral and ethical debate. Who are we to choose who's to live and die for the sake of human advancement. But still I think eugenics should be taken, and considered as serious business.

The risks are high, but the payouts can be even higher. What if by using eugenics we create a new human superrace with IQ's of 189 points and up, immune for the terminal deceases like cancer and as a bonus leaving a smaller carbon footprint on the earth. It would be a great advancement for humans, and not much different from evolution. Humans and superhumans can live side by side, until finaly we have a mix that is better than the averages we have now.

The mindless killing that has been called eugenics to this day was primarily just people feeling better than others. I feel like i'm shifting towards transhumanism.

@Vasska,

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.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

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.

Wikpedia:
Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.

Answers.com:
The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

Britannica Encyclopedia (online):
the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans.

=====
Eugenics is the desired advancement of the human (or animal) race. This can be done by selective breading, or other means like genocide and etnocide.

However the means are different from the philosophy. Eugenics as philosophy only wants human (or animal) advancement.

@avatar6v7,

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.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

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.

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.

@jgweed,

jgweed wrote:

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.

The Kantian perspective eh?

@jgweed,

jgweed wrote:

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.

The arguments against eugenics are sound indeed. Eugenics will see individual human beings as objects, same as evolution does. This however is only an ethical question. A highly ethical question arises; Why can't we see other human beings as objects?

Eugenics assumes its criteria are true, no arguing there. But so does everything. The difference lies into what is to be achieved. Hitlers Arian breeding farms or modern day scientists trying to modify human genes to be immune for diseases is completely different. Besides, nothing is certain.

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

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.

Acceptability depends on culture and religion and maybe experience.

I worked as a trainee at a school for disabled children from February to June this year. The ages were between 15 and 21 and about every form of disabilities.

My first week was somewhat overwhelming. Everywhere I looked I saw disabled kids the same age as mine, or even older. I started to learn many things about these kids. Most of them, and not only the autistic are extremely lonely. Some have been abandoned by their parents, living in a housing project, others still have their parents but are coping with countless problems.

I gave basic IT because of their known limitations It was nothing more than naming the basic PC-components and their functions. As well the use of the Office Suite (Word, Powerpoint, Excel and others). Despite these things being relatively easy and adapted towards their needs many of them still failed applying or remembering them.

Finding jobs or even simply internships was hard, hard, hard work. Public transportation is a no go for many, depending on private transportation like taxis and taxi vans.

It made me realize that these kids have it extremely hard. They get government compensation for the extra expenses but it's just enough to life on slightly below primary needs, with plans to cut the compensation down even more.

One thing I cannot forget is what i saw one morning. I was on bike and turned the corner to see one of the vans unloading, yes truly unloading the kids who were in those electrical wheelchairs. While seeing it i felt their dignity going down the drain.

Having this experience I would say it's ok to abort babies with genetic defects resulting into lasting disabilities. Just to save them (and those in the direct family) all the pain.

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.

@Vasska,

Vasska wrote:

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.

@avatar6v7,

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

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

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.

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.

My emphasis was more on the rest of the story.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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

A good post, but I would like to raise a point here. You call Eugenics an essentially conservative driven concept, but with liberal attitudes towards eugenics and abortion we could see anothe form of 'Eugenics' emerging. Is this new kind acceptable?

@Vasska,

Vasska wrote:

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?

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

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.

@Vasska,

Eugenics was of course a big mistake!!

Instead of killing and sterilizing people. We can cure the handicaps. And instead of breading people, we can change we genes to get a better human race.

@Vasska,

Vasska wrote:

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?

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

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?

Sure we should have a severe loss. But maybe we have had millions of severe loses over the centuries.

I'm feeling we both are speaking about the same thing, but with an different accent. We both feel eugenics is wrong in the ways it has been executed by certain regimes. However eugenics can also be used in a more ethical way by taking away the source of the problem. Thereby preventing it from happening.

I feel like this thread is becoming somewhat an extension of the original question. So maybe it's better to draw up conclusions.

@Vasska,

Avatar6v7,

But is abortion actually a form of eugenics? The typical definition of eugenics, though debatable to a certain extent, is the study of human improvement by genetic means. Abortion does not involve an issue of genetic manipulation, but rather the issue of fetal survival or even the potential to gestate a human. The human is already part of the equation. In eugenics, the human condition is (for the most part) predetermined. If one can except this definition, you can trace eugenics all the way back to Plato in the Republic who advocated selective breeding for the interest of improving society. But the destruction of the fetus after the fact is an entirely different issue than the me. So I think that abortion is more of a separate bioethical issue, more along the lines of life and death rather than the quality of life it would potentially alter or necessarily prohibit..

The new kind of eugenics you speak of is interesting. But when I mention conservativism, it is in regards to the state and an adherence to positivistic principles. Currently, I don't think that any side of the aisle is particularly opposed to eugenics. Both conservatives and liberals advocate the abortion of an inbred child because of the future problem that child would pose in the national gene pool. But the term "liberal" in the issue is problematic. Some conservative countries are very conservative, yet very liberal when it comes to things like stem cell research like Italy. Italians are a very conservative people despite what the media reports, yet the majority of Italians are for stem cell research.

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Eugenics-your opinions

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Eugenics-your opinions

Quick Links

My Account

able2know