What would happen if the eugenesists had their way?
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
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.
-
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.
Intelligent people don't always come to the same conclusions.
If the entire society has been based on eugenics from the beginning, that IS their moral compass. Much like how most of us hold Democracy with such high regard. Our last election now has me wondering if letting 100 million ignorant people choose a rapist felon for our leader is actually the BEST way, but giving every person a voice and a vote is our political morality.
I suspect a eugenics based society would recognize the "inconveniences" that some people face, but their idea of "greater good for society" will outweigh a lot of that.
Definitely not supporting the idea of eugenics, but I do think that people who were raised on it, would see it in a more positive light than we do now.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
Intelligent people don't always come to the same conclusions.
If the entire society has been based on eugenics from the beginning, that IS their moral compass. Much like how most of us hold Democracy with such high regard. Our last election now has me wondering if letting 100 million ignorant people choose a rapist felon for our leader is actually the BEST way, but giving every person a voice and a vote is our political morality.
I suspect a eugenics based society would recognize the "inconveniences" that some people face, but their idea of "greater good for society" will outweigh a lot of that.
Definitely not supporting the idea of eugenics, but I do think that people who were raised on it, would see it in a more positive light than we do now.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
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.
No opinion, but I suggest you watch the movie "Gattaca" if you didn't already
-
No opinion, but I suggest you watch the movie "Gattaca" if you didn't already
Its really 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.
-
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.
Probably some pretty fucked up shit like forced sterilization and genocides
-
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.
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".
-
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".
Im not playing that game. They can try to rebrand but to me they are the same.
-
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.
-
Im not playing that game. They can try to rebrand but to me they are the same.
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.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
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.
They aren't contradicting themselves at all, you just aren't understanding their point.
-
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.
-
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.
