asbestosman wrote:Isn't the problem here what constitutes "Optimal society?" In other words, don't we reject eugenics because we don't think such a society is optimal (i.e. leads to greater suffering)?
mfbukowski wrote:You don't even know what my ideas are much less what they "entail".
Ohhh, now, I wouldn’t say that. I feel pretty comfortable talking about what you believe.
mfbukowski wrote:It seems to me the last time a society tried eugenics, there was a little war in which the world rose up against that society and to this day, that war is regarded by many as the last "morally justified" conflict the world has known. I think they called it "World War II".
World War II wasn’t over eugenics, and American Science had more to do with developing eugenics than any Nazi state. There are cases here in the States where “mentally retarded” people were sterilized.
Think about it. Everyone wants to preserve their culture. Everyone feels some group(s) are inferior. We don't just marry anyone, we marry people who we feel will allow our offspring the best chance in life. Otherwise, what does it matter who you have children with? Some people fit your criteria and some don't. And rightly so.
Sure, not everyone believes in a holocaust, but that isn't the only application of making sure your genes are passed on more successfully than others.
If anything, Mormons defending their faith and culture is such an application. Note that I am not knocking it. Just saying.
Eugenics isn't necessarily a bad thing. We all do it by being selective in who we have children with.
asbestosman wrote:Isn't the problem here what constitutes "Optimal society?" In other words, don't we reject eugenics because we don't think such a society is optimal (i.e. leads to greater suffering)?
Our country's eventual rejection had more to do with a person's autonomy, than some utilitarian calculus about which lead to greater suffering.
mfbukowski wrote:It seems to me the last time a society tried eugenics, there was a little war in which the world rose up against that society and to this day, that war is regarded by many as the last "morally justified" conflict the world has known. I think they called it "World War II".
Since we are not speaking German and there are some Jews left in the world, I would say that civilization won.
I'm afraid the history of Eugenics is more disturbing than simply Nazi Germany--horrible as that was. Our nation had its own program of sterilization. Google it man.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Since we are not speaking German and there are some Jews left in the world, I would say that civilization won.
Ugh. Do you not know what civilization means? Had the Nazis won do you think we all would have disassembled the world's cities, abandoned agriculture, and forgotten how to write? You are coming across as hopelessly.....well, I don't know. Like a punch line to a joke. Anyone may PM me for the joke, as it is in bad taste.
emilysmith wrote:Eugenics isn't necessarily a bad thing. We all do it by being selective in who we have children with.
!?!?!?!?!?
Although the concern of this paper is with whether we should use eugenics talk, not with what such talk means, it will nonetheless be useful first to say something about how eugenics is defined. The term was coined in 1883 by Francis Galton.7 He defined it as the study of “the conditions under which men of a high type are produced” and as “the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race”.
Spurven Ten Sing wrote:Ugh. Do you not know what civilization means? Had the Nazis won do you think we all would have disassembled the world's cities, abandoned agriculture, and forgotten how to write? You are coming across as hopelessly.....well, I don't know. Like a punch line to a joke. Anyone may PM me for the joke, as it is in bad taste.
I seem to recall a certain group of people who enjoyed jokes in poor taste, my grandfather called them NAZIS AND THEY LOST WORLD WAR TWO, IN CASE YOU DIDN’T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MrStakhanovite wrote:Our country's eventual rejection had more to do with a person's autonomy, than some utilitarian calculus about which lead to greater suffering.
I think that's basically correct about a person's autonomy. However, we don't hold a person's autonomy to be the most important thing in the world. We will force people to pay Social Security or other taxes to help alleviate the suffering of others. I think in part a person's autonomy (or suffering as a lack thereof) is compared with the suffering others receive when that autonomy is left without certain restrictions. We place a high value on the autonomy of an individual (or on society as a whole), but we will put limits on it for reasons other than purely because it effects the autonomy of someone else.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO