What would happen if the eugenesists had their way?
-
They aren't contradicting themselves at all, you just aren't understanding their point.
wrote last edited by [email protected]They are. They are making the claim that intelligence and morality are completely separate then immediately demonstrating how they are not. Unless OP is making the claim they are not intelligent and should be ignored..
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Nope, eugenics is a colloquial term. You move from it or be a nazi.
-
They are. They are making the claim that intelligence and morality are completely separate then immediately demonstrating how they are not. Unless OP is making the claim they are not intelligent and should be ignored..
But you're the one that said they aren't untethered. They didn't mention anything about that...
Could you please share the quote where there was a contradiction? I'd be interested to see where they said that intelligence and morality are linked
-
But you're the one that said they aren't untethered. They didn't mention anything about that...
Could you please share the quote where there was a contradiction? I'd be interested to see where they said that intelligence and morality are linked
wrote last edited by [email protected]Intelligence doesn’t make you more ethical
Lol.
-
Youre not supporting the idea of eugenics because you know it to be lunacy. If they were acting in good faith, the more intelligent society would recognize the lunacy as well. If not they would remain dumb.
Science is consistent. If mankind started over from scratch, they would eventually come to the same scientific conclusions as us.
Society and morality is VERY abstract and every society has their own unique spin on it. We have no idea what societal structures would exist after a hypothetical human reset.
Democracy revolves around "every body has value", and in that light, elimination of "inferior" people is horrific.
But eugenics is more of a "sacrifice some for the greater good" kind of belief, and they would believe that their actions are morally superior to the "selfishness of having unauthorized offspring".
-
Intelligence doesn’t make you more ethical
Lol.
Sorry, I meant examples where they said that the two are linked. The example you gave was the opposite.
Apologies if I phrased it poorly.
-
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.
There would be a lot less creativity and innovation if Eugenisists had their way. Think about it. If everyone was the same, where would new and innovative ideas https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-matters-even-more-the-case-for-holistic-impact)? Even worse how many ideas would die with their people? Who are the people we are getting rid of?
Racially motivated eugenisists have been around for ever and kill civilization not help it (genocides). Gender related eugenics happen and it's usually women that pay (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/one-child-policy.asp). How do messure disability and the impact on ones life? IQ tests messure the ability to regurgitate facts not actual intelligence (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6927908/).
I'm sure I'm missing some, but this os more than enough to show if Eugenisists have any say we all will suffer.
-
Nope, eugenics is a colloquial term. You move from it or be a nazi.
Username checks out
-
Username checks out
Im 100% right. You normalize eugenics you will set society back 100 years.
-
Science is consistent. If mankind started over from scratch, they would eventually come to the same scientific conclusions as us.
Society and morality is VERY abstract and every society has their own unique spin on it. We have no idea what societal structures would exist after a hypothetical human reset.
Democracy revolves around "every body has value", and in that light, elimination of "inferior" people is horrific.
But eugenics is more of a "sacrifice some for the greater good" kind of belief, and they would believe that their actions are morally superior to the "selfishness of having unauthorized offspring".
wrote last edited by [email protected]Societies have 100% operated under other moral structures. Under the moral operative that human life is inherently valuable our society has progressed further then any other recorded civilization.
-
Sorry, I meant examples where they said that the two are linked. The example you gave was the opposite.
Apologies if I phrased it poorly.
Sorry, explain again, what argument are you making?
-
There would be a lot less creativity and innovation if Eugenisists had their way. Think about it. If everyone was the same, where would new and innovative ideas https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-matters-even-more-the-case-for-holistic-impact)? Even worse how many ideas would die with their people? Who are the people we are getting rid of?
Racially motivated eugenisists have been around for ever and kill civilization not help it (genocides). Gender related eugenics happen and it's usually women that pay (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/one-child-policy.asp). How do messure disability and the impact on ones life? IQ tests messure the ability to regurgitate facts not actual intelligence (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6927908/).
I'm sure I'm missing some, but this os more than enough to show if Eugenisists have any say we all will suffer.
wrote last edited by [email protected]IQ measures the likelihood of someone being successful based on an age category. It has little to do with actual critical thinking. In a society that only values IQ it becomes meaningless because its only feeding off itself.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]deleted by creator
-
Sorry, explain again, what argument are you making?
wrote last edited by [email protected]You claimed that they claim intelligence and morality were tethered somehow. I was wondering where that was said. I didn't see that anywhere in the original message so I think I either misunderstood something or missed a different message.
I was wondering if you could show them saying that intelligence and morality were related to each other.
This isn't an argument being made, I'm just curious where it was said as I can't find it.
-
You claimed that they claim intelligence and morality were tethered somehow. I was wondering where that was said. I didn't see that anywhere in the original message so I think I either misunderstood something or missed a different message.
I was wondering if you could show them saying that intelligence and morality were related to each other.
This isn't an argument being made, I'm just curious where it was said as I can't find it.
You claimed that they claim intelligence and morality were tethered somehow.
I did not. Where?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
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.
