What would happen if the eugenesists had their way?
-
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.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
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.
You seem really set on insisting that there’s a link between intelligence and morality, and at this point I don’t think I have the energy to disabuse you of that notion. Suffice it to say, you’re wrong on both the individual and societal levels. Much of the history of civilization is war, and involved in that comes conquest and reorganization of societal boundaries. Pretty much every society today is the product of a chain of wars. Are you going to say all societies are bad, just because there’s blood in their foundations?
The world isn’t as black-and-white as you’re painting it. Intelligence isn’t linked to morality and morality itself is more gray than black-and-white. That latter part is something you should definitely have learned in your ethics class.
-
You seem really set on insisting that there’s a link between intelligence and morality, and at this point I don’t think I have the energy to disabuse you of that notion. Suffice it to say, you’re wrong on both the individual and societal levels. Much of the history of civilization is war, and involved in that comes conquest and reorganization of societal boundaries. Pretty much every society today is the product of a chain of wars. Are you going to say all societies are bad, just because there’s blood in their foundations?
The world isn’t as black-and-white as you’re painting it. Intelligence isn’t linked to morality and morality itself is more gray than black-and-white. That latter part is something you should definitely have learned in your ethics class.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I dont know what to tell you. Youre not someone I would goto for insight into intelligence or morality.
-
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.
-
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.
