Is Eugenics ethical?
From what I gather, eugenics follows the Darwins theory of Survival of the Fittest and takes it to a new level. Most eugenicists believe that for a country to become superior the fittest and clevrest should breed and have many children, while the unfit should be 'voluntarilty' sterilised.
This was very popular in the early 1900's until an Austrian fellow took it a tad too far (need I say more?). And after the 'incident' eugenics suddenly got seen in a very bad light. However, I met an atheist recently who shared the same view and just wondered if any others out there still follow eugenics.
Yes
Side Score: 28
|
 |
No
Side Score: 20
|
|
|
|
|
3
points
3
points
Is there a universally accepted standard which isn't completely arbitrary by which we can define an act as ethical? No. So it logically follows that there is also no universally accepted standard by which we can define an act as unethical either. Therefore, eugenics is neither ethical nor unethical, it is in a state of ethical uncertainty, just like every moral act that is taken. Personally I don't see the point in coercing or forcing people into eugenics, seeing as the science behind it is shaky, to say the least. However if two people willingly want to have a child purely for the purposes of having a "designer baby", then they're welcome to. Side: Yes
"Is there a universally accepted standard which isn't completely arbitrary by which we can define an act as ethical?" No there isn't, hence why we're debating on the matter. People have different guidelines for ethics, like Christians use the Bible or judge ethics by using their conscience. Side: Yes
0
points
1
point
2
points
There is nothing wrong! with eugenics! It's when people commit genocide that they (people) become wrong! You can't just kill off a large portion of the gene pool cause you want to and human genes keep changing so who knows perhaps the gene pool might come in handy in the future! Eugenics should not be used as a means to separate people or treat people differently. Side: Yes
-1
points
I disagree reference To quote ChuckHades "I'd like to hear why exactly this act would be ethical. Cultures change. Therefore ethics change. Therefore ethics are either subjective, constructed, or illusory. Therefore applying a subjective, constructed, or illusory system to an objective race leads to no conclusions whatsoever. Therefore, anything with a degree of ethics is uncertain. Therefore, eugenics is ethically uncertain. Eugenics is ethically uncertain, and while it's not something I support, it is neither ethical nor unethical." go on, give ChuckHades a vote up too. you know it makes sense! Side: No
1
point
It's absolutely ethical! Eugenics is the study of human genes spread throughout the human gene pool.Using it we can improve ourselves and our babies to create more evolved and stronger,smarter human beings by mixing traits from different gene pools. Killing people or preventing someone from mating IS WRONG but creating designer babies isn't. (just cause a person creates a eugenically motivated baby doesn't mean that they can't have more babies nor does it mean that one baby is superior than it's sibling!) Side: Yes
1
point
A governmental entity might very well give out "gifts" to people who either have, or do not have children. A person with a lower range intelligence or fitness level might be paid to have less children, such as only one, but a person with more intelligence might be paid to have some extra children. This would prevent genocide, allow "lesser" or whatever term is acceptable, people to have children. Of course, it is STILL completely optional. This means a less intelligent person can have AS MANY CHILDREN as he or she wants, but does not get benefits until passing a test of some sort. No penalty, just no benefits, while if they have LESS children, they GET benefits, while a more "fit" person would lose nothing by having no kids, but by having kids, would be gifted by the state. This would change nothing in the current system, except encourage smarter, more fit people to breed, and less intelligent people not to. Of course, defining "fit" is the problem, along with the horribly insulting "not fit enough to be encouraged to breed" label. Side: Yes
Ethics is relative, and an ethical argument could be advanced in favour of eugenics. That said and out of the way I more precisely wanted to point out that "Survival of the Fittest" is falsely attributed to Darwin and actually was invented by sociologist Herbert Spencer. Darwin likely would not have embraced the theory as Spencer advanced it, nor as others subsequently construed it, given the complicated scientific nature of genetics. Side: Yes
|
1
point
No, eugenics are not ethical. Forcing sterility upon anyone sounds completely asinine. I'd like to hear why exactly this act would not be unethical. And take into consideration that morals and values are a product of our cultural evolution. If they were not meant to be what's best for us to advance ourselves, they would not exist. Side: No
3
points
I'd like to hear why exactly this act would not be unethical. Cultures change. Therefore ethics change. Therefore ethics are either subjective, constructed, or illusory. Therefore applying a subjective, constructed, or illusory system to an objective race leads to no conclusions whatsoever. Therefore, anything with a degree of ethics is uncertain. Therefore, eugenics is ethically uncertain. Eugenics is ethically uncertain, and while it's not something I support, it is neither ethical nor unethical. Side: Yes
1
point
Cultures change. Therefore ethics change. Therefore ethics are either subjective, constructed, or illusory. Well of course, but is this to say ethics of the present are not relevant? They are very relevant. And a general population agreeing upon them is no work of the supernatural. Culture changes based around what is needed to advance said culture. Therefore applying a subjective, constructed, or illusory system to an objective race leads to no conclusions whatsoever. And why is that? Just because they are a general product of the imagination does not mean they are not relevant. We think up these things for a reason, and the end reason is to advance ourselves. If they had no purpose or reason behind being thought up and accepted as relevant, then they would not have been thought up and accepted as relevant. Therefore, eugenics is ethically uncertain No, they're not. Most would agree that forcing sterility upon someone is unethical, and such agreement is not irrelevant when taking a look at this. Perhaps if it was voluntary sterilization, it would not be unethical, but sterility is no laughing matter. Breeding is programed into our genes and our brains. If someone says they're okay with being sterilized, you have to ask why they're okay with it. And more likely then not, the reason they're okay with it will be deeply embedded in what would be considered extremely unethical or illogical rationale. Side: No
And take into consideration that morals and values are a product of our cultural evolution. If they were not meant to be what's best for us to advance ourselves, they would not exist. Culture is not an inherent human universal, and is not intrinsically derived from human nature. This is why human cultures vary widely, while certain universals (e.g. facial expressions) are consistent across cultures. Values are not evolutionary so much as they are developed. That being said, they change either way. Neither evolution nor development are static; they change based upon the pressures of our environment - meaning that outdated morality/ethics/values can change as well. Side: No
No, and it shocks me that so many people can be in support of it. First of all, how can we really forbid certain people to breed, just because their genes are perceived as weaker? Being sterilized contradicts the strongest, most basic urge in all humans: to pass on your genes. Secondly, even if people agreed that their genes were weaker and they should be sterilized, how do we determine who's genes are better? I can understand weeding out people with disabilities, even though it is incredibly inhumane, but where will it end? If someone is physically weak, should they be forbidden from breeding? Which genes will be prized over others? Eventually, you get to something like the Holocaust, where people are keeping only those who they believe to be the strongest, even if there is no proof their genes are any stronger than another persons. Side: No
In addition, any biologist will tell you genetic diversity is one of the most important components to keeping a healthy population. Breeding for desirable traits will only limit the diversity of the human race and end up causing more harm. Look at dogs. Golden Retrievers, for example, have been bred very carefully to be the best looking they can be. However, limiting the gene pool has caused a lot of inbreeding and with it, a lot of problems, such as hip dysplasia, which is very common in Golden Retrievers now. Side: No
1
point
0
points
http://violence.freedommag.org/ http://violence.freedommag.org/ http://violence.freedommag.org/ I may have gone off topic ;) Side: No
0
points
Eugenics in an extreme sense, is unethical because it is a form of discrimination with a harsh consequence of certain people being forced out of living freely, having a family with children, and looked down upon by society. For those people who endorse eugenics because it 'promotes' the human race, I think you are wrong for the following reason. One of the things that separates us from other species on this planet, is our caring and sympathetic nature, and the way we treat every being equally regardless of their genetic traits. If we make ourselves into a discriminatory system whereby we select and eliminate certain kinds of people, we are heading for a disturbing path. Side: No
One of the things that separates us from other species on this planet, is our caring and sympathetic nature, and the way we treat every being equally regardless of their genetic traits. Definitively not true. Other species have been clearly evidenced to display compassion and sympathy, as well as grief and other emotions. This is not at all a unique human quality. What separates us is a capacity for higher cognition, self-reflection, and self-awareness. If we make ourselves into a discriminatory system whereby we select and eliminate certain kinds of people, we are heading for a disturbing path. We are already a discriminatory system, and individuals are routinely persecuted for their genetic characteristics. Whether it is a physical or mental disability, something such as human sexuality, or skin or hair color, there are marked disadvantages for certain genetic traits within every society. Selection and elimination already happens, it is just less explicit which makes it more palatable to those who do not experience that discrimination. Side: No
2
points
Your first point - yes I agree that most other intelligent life forms show signs of such traits and are not unique to humans. However, I was more referring to our superior intelligence, hence our efforts to produce laws, employ policemen, doctors and carers. Surely allowing something like eugenics would undermine and offend the intelligence and courteousness of our species? As for your second point - are you suggesting that because something is acceptable in our current society, we should do nothing to question or do to solve the problem? Side: Yes
Implementing a policy of eugenics is exceedingly vain and egotistical. Natural selection is a tried and true system of evolution that has perpetuated life in some form or other for millions of years. Individual humans or human society attempting to replicate the process based upon our currently limited knowledge of human evolutionary genetics is destined for failure. Attempting to accelerate our evolution is not a practical reality; we have made strides in understanding our genetic biology but there is a considerable quantity of important knowledge that we have yet to grasp. Furthermore, any system of eugenics implemented by a society is necessarily subject to the same influences as every other policy. This is to say that it would not be a purely scientific endeavor as would be necessary for its success, but that it would be significantly influenced by natural human prejudice, economic motivations, and the other host of usual suspects. Side: No
This was very popular in the early 1900's until an Austrian fellow took it a tad too far (need I say more?). And after the 'incident' eugenics suddenly got seen in a very bad light. So, just to be clear, Axemeister. You are a slightly moderate neo-nazi, right? As you say above, you feel that the murder of 6 millions Jews in gas chambers around Europe was only "a tad too far". Those of us that aren't insane refer to this time in history as a "holocaust", not just an "incident", and we don't question it's ethics. There is nothing ethical about forced sterilizations or genocide. There is no master race! Any person of science knows that. "Racial hygiene" is bullshit. There is no proof for it and those that support it are usually racist, egomaniac losers who are compensating for some personal defect of theirs. I'm guessing the eugenics you obviously support glorifies and creates only white people. What a surprise. Really.... I'm totally shocked by that. Eugenics is not science. With real science, genetic diversity is a desirable thing for any organism. Eugenics is a method for white assholes to try to validate their racist views, its not a real science. Side: No
|
