What would happen if the eugenesists had their way?
-
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.
-
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?
