I personally believe there is no way for them to succeed. If they were acting in good faith the actual incease in the number of intelligent people, who would recognize cruelty when they see it, would tear it down. If they acted in bad faith, which they most definitely would, they would fill the world with these idiots.
You must log in or register to comment.
Intelligence doesn’t make you more ethical. If they “won,” the future intelligent people they created would still be raised by parents who believed in eugenics, and so they too would likely regard it as good.
So the ideas that their parents instilled are stupid and the “intelligent” person is stupid. So you didnt achieve a more intelligent society.
No, you’re missing the point: don’t conflate intelligence and morality. Eugenics isn’t a bad idea because it’s unwise (although, it is); it’s a bad idea because it’s unfair and takes people’s fundamental human rights away.
You’re contradicting yourself
Eugenics isn’t a bad idea because it’s unwise (although, it is)
You’re trying to make a moral argument but morality isn’t magically untethered from intelligence.
There is no contradiction there. The “although, it is” simply acknowledges that eugenics is unwise; the point is that that isn’t what makes it a morally bad idea.
And there’s no magic going on. Morality and intelligence just aren’t the same thing and aren’t linked in any way. Smarter people are not necessarily more moral or vice versa.
That is just not true. Morals involve reason and logic. Take one ethics class. Take one single ethics class.
“eugenics is unwise”
Is a statement describing applying reason to derive a moral understanding.
You can have morals that use simple or flawed reason but that is indicative of low intelligence.
Yes, morals utilize reason and logic, but that doesn’t mean you’re necessarily more moral if you’re smarter. At best, it might mean that certain moral perspectives are easier to grasp if you’re smarter, but even if you grasp them that doesn’t mean you hold them.
“eugenics is unwise”
Is a statement describing applying reason to derive a moral understanding.
No. It’s a statement asserting that eugenics has flaws and drawbacks that will ultimately prove detrimental to its own goal. This has nothing to do with the moral argument against it.
A single person can be immoral but that doesnt mean morality doesnt exsist. They acknowledge they are being immoral by not applying reason and are stupid to do so. Yes the individual can benefit from being immoral but we are talking about society, when referring to eugenics, which does not benefit from immoral behavior.
Honestly? Nothing except a lot of pointless suffering. Eugenics isn’t just immoral; it literally does not work. The nazis did their damnedest to kill all people with schizophrenia during the Holocaust. Schizophrenia numbers were back up to normal within a couple decades.
See this video (linked to the correct timestamp) for more on why eugenics doesn’t actually do anything.
Which eugenicists?
There a big difference between “kill everyone of a certain race” and “you don’t get to reproduce if you have a horrifying heritable disease”.
Both are unjustifiable. Governments should never get to decide who’s allowed to reproduce.
Eugenics isn’t just done by government. The world has been limiting the reproduction of the disabled through social pressure for ages. Look at the stigma interracial relationships used to have. Examples are everywhere.
Why does everyone think eugenics only means the way the Nazis did it?
It’s a broad term people. The government is the most heavy handed way to implement it but social pressure is arguably more effective and harder to end.
Im not playing that game. They can try to rebrand but to me they are the same.
to me they are the same.
Well, it’s a shame for you that the definitions for words don’t care about your feelings.
Do any surface level research on eugenics and it’s always first and foremost about things like forced sterilization/select so called “superior” people for breeding and the like. Even when nazi Germany is mentioned the focus is on forced sterilization and support for the families considered “superior” over those that aren’t.
The ethnic cleansing done in nazi Germany, while used in tandem with eugenics, is its own seperate thing.
I think you lost my meaning. It the other poster who wants to claim preventing disease by ending pregnancy early is eugenics.
Either I didnt say something right or I completely agree with you.
Well, once involves mass murder and the other doesn’t, so I think the people being impacted by that would see a difference.
But if your worldview needs overgeneralizations to survive, you do you I guess.
Then call it something else, I dont care if you think if it fits the definition, you can modify the term or create a new one. Normalizing eugenics is insanity.
Look. If you want to talk about ethnic cleansing, talk about ethnic cleansing. If you want to talk about mass murder, talk about mass murder. But the term “eugenics” covers a lot of possibilities whether you like that or not.
Sorry.
Nope, eugenics is a colloquial term. You move from it or be a nazi.
Username checks out
Im 100% right. You normalize eugenics you will set society back 100 years.
