This discussion is closed.
elpaw
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#1
Is it really that bad?

Can it ever be justified?

Maybe Nazism gave it a bad name by taking it morally that one step beyond ....

discuss...
0
sashh
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 15 years ago
#2
yes it's that bad
0
Cossack
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#3
Report 15 years ago
#3
A doctrine which holds that the human race can be "improved" by selective control of breeding to eradicate less "desirable" traits in society. The supporters of eugenics argue that social problems are caused by inherited genetic traits in people which can be bred out to resolve the problem for future generations. The logical conclusion of this theory is deeply racist and reactionary based on dubious research and prejudice.'

Not my words but sum it up pretty well I reckon
0
Just an LSE guy
Badges:
#4
Report 15 years ago
#4
(Original post by elpaw)
Is it really that bad?

Can it ever be justified?

Maybe Nazism gave it a bad name by taking it morally that one step beyond ....

discuss...
To me, eugenics makes complete sense. It doesn’t kill anybody – it simply enables us to remove certain genes that cause great misery to hundreds of millions of people. And it also means we can breed superior humans, thus fuelling man’s evolution.

The Nazis also breathed in air – should we stop breathing air just because the Nazis did too?

And please people - lets keep morality out of this. Morality is simply the projection of one's feelings and values onto other people. I can just as easily argue that eugenics is a virtue as others can say it is a vice. So let's not be so dumb, ok?
0
an Siarach
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5
Report 15 years ago
#5
(Original post by Just an LSE guy)
To me, eugenics makes complete sense. It doesn’t kill anybody – it simply enables us to remove certain genes that cause great misery to hundreds of millions of people. And it also means we can breed superior humans, thus fuelling man’s evolution.

The Nazis also breathed in air – should we stop breathing air just because the Nazis did too?

And please people - lets keep morality out of this. Morality is simply the projection of one's feelings and values onto other people. I can just as easily argue that eugenics is a virtue as others can say it is a vice. So let's not be so dumb, ok?
Indeed. If you take morality out of the consideration then eugenics (NOT the nazi practice of it, only the idea itself) can be justified to an extent. (*note* again this is without consideration of morals or ethics)
0
Meghan
Badges: 0
#6
Report 15 years ago
#6
If you discuss it without morality being brought up, then it can only give good results.

The eradication of poor genes (and those who carry them) should surely end the occurrence of inherited diseases?
0
an Siarach
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7
Report 15 years ago
#7
(Original post by Meghan)
If you discuss it without morality being brought up, then it can only give good results.

The eradication of poor genes (and those who carry them) should surely end the occurrence of inherited diseases?
It wouldnt eradicate the occurrence altogether as new ones would inevitably arise, it would however greatly reduce and possibly get rid of the existing ones. On the other hand there are 'disabilities' which can prove beneficial. For example sickle cell anemia is far more prevalent in Africa than in the rest of the world as it makes you more resistant to malaria. Looking at eugenics objectively does not mean you can only come up with good results. For example bearing in mind the aforementioned anemia case, eugenics would result in decreased genetic diversity making us far more vulnerable to devestation through disease etc.
0
Just an LSE guy
Badges:
#8
Report 15 years ago
#8
(Original post by an Siarach)
It wouldnt eradicate the occurrence altogether as new ones would inevitably arise, it would however greatly reduce and possibly get rid of the existing ones. On the other hand there are 'disabilities' which can prove beneficial. For example sickle cell anemia is far more prevalent in Africa than in the rest of the world as it makes you more resistant to malaria. Looking at eugenics objectively does not mean you can only come up with good results. For example bearing in mind the aforementioned anemia case, eugenics would result in decreased genetic diversity making us far more vulnerable to devestation through disease etc.
Yes, that is the downside to eugenics – if we control our gene pool too much then random mutations would be stamped out and our species will not evolve to the next stage.

A solution: an elite would benefit from genetic engineering, whilst the bulk of mankind – the work force - would remain untouched so as to ensure the growth of random mutation – those new genes that prove beneficial will then be integrated within the elite gene pool.
0
an Siarach
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#9
Report 15 years ago
#9
(Original post by Just an LSE guy)
Yes, that is the downside to eugenics – if we control our gene pool too much then random mutations would be stamped out and our species will not evolve to the next stage.

A solution: an elite would benefit from genetic engineering, whilst the bulk of mankind – the work force - would remain untouched so as to ensure the growth of random mutation – those new genes that prove beneficial will then be integrated within the elite gene pool.
Lol i cant wait for the flaming youre gonna recieve for that view of the future.
Perhaps something of this sort is happening already? We have the established elite, which tends to breed within itself, and the multitudes of the working/lower middle class who occasionally marry up should they make something of themselves, perhaps bringing their successful genes with them?
0
Meghan
Badges: 0
#10
Report 15 years ago
#10
(Original post by Just an LSE guy)
A solution: an elite would benefit from genetic engineering, whilst the bulk of mankind – the work force - would remain untouched so as to ensure the growth of random mutation – those new genes that prove beneficial will then be integrated within the elite gene pool.
:rolleyes: sounds a bit too much like Brave New World to me...
0
Just an LSE guy
Badges:
#11
Report 15 years ago
#11
(Original post by an Siarach)
Lol i cant wait for the flaming youre gonna recieve for that view of the future.
Perhaps something of this sort is happening already? We have the established elite, which tends to breed within itself, and the multitudes of the working/lower middle class who occasionally marry up should they make something of themselves, perhaps bringing their successful genes with them?
Yes. The herd, by definition, are incapable of governing themselves. They don’t like the idea of individuals better than themselves ruling them – in addition to resentment they also fear strong, healthy, free-spirited individuals. In democracy there is still an elite that rules but the elite themselves are merely the elite of the herd – i.e. part of the same herd mentality. Democracy, in short, leads to a herd-like elite. And so there is no oppression of the people. But there is also no vision, no genius, no greatness either (can you imagine the previous rulers of this country building a tent to celebrate the millennium? – democracy leads to this mundaneness everywhere).

The herd is merely nature’s way of arriving at, by random mutation, brilliant individuals, creators. The herd is nothing, a mere means to an end: the end is the individual. The ultimate is, of course, the Übermensch.
0
Chubb
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#12
Report 15 years ago
#12
(Original post by an Siarach)
Lol i cant wait for the flaming youre gonna recieve for that view of the future.
Perhaps something of this sort is happening already? We have the established elite, which tends to breed within itself, and the multitudes of the working/lower middle class who occasionally marry up should they make something of themselves, perhaps bringing their successful genes with them?
Yes but look at whats happening to the "ruling elite" as a result of their inbreeding - if you don't know what I mean just look at prince Charles. :eek:
The ruling elite didn't get their success from good genes - they got most of it from sucking up to the royal families of old (ie most of the current nobility came from inheriting it from the Norman invasion). Then they just inherited all the land and money. This inbreeding not only leads to the exaggeration of good genes but bad genes also.
0
an Siarach
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#13
Report 15 years ago
#13
(Original post by Chubb)
Yes but look at whats happening to the "ruling elite" as a result of their inbreeding - if you don't know what I mean just look at prince Charles. :eek:
The ruling elite didn't get their success from good genes - they got most of it from sucking up to the royal families of old (ie most of the current nobility came from inheriting it from the Norman invasion). Then they just inherited all the land and money. This inbreeding not only leads to the exaggeration of good genes but bad genes also.
True, thus the need for fresh blood!
0
Investmentboy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 15 years ago
#14
(Original post by Just an LSE guy)
To me, eugenics makes complete sense. It doesn’t kill anybody – it simply enables us to remove certain genes that cause great misery to hundreds of millions of people. And it also means we can breed superior humans, thus fuelling man’s evolution.

The Nazis also breathed in air – should we stop breathing air just because the Nazis did too?

And please people - lets keep morality out of this. Morality is simply the projection of one's feelings and values onto other people. I can just as easily argue that eugenics is a virtue as others can say it is a vice. So let's not be so dumb, ok?
The day morality is disregarded will be a sad one for human kind
0
Elles
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 15 years ago
#15
(Original post by Just an LSE guy)
To me, eugenics makes complete sense. It doesn’t kill anybody – it simply enables us to remove certain genes that cause great misery to hundreds of millions of people. And it also means we can breed superior humans, thus fuelling man’s evolution.
well, you can have positive or negative eugenics & negative involves removing "undesirables".

I'm not sure how eugenics would aid evolution. Balanced polymorphisms (as an Siarach describes) can be unpredictable or transient - we never know what selection pressures a population may have to face in the future.. so i'm not convinced it would be a positive thing.
0
Just an LSE guy
Badges:
#16
Report 15 years ago
#16
(Original post by Investmentboy)
The day morality is disregarded will be a sad one for human kind
What is morality? Morality is simply feelings and values – they are not the object themselves.

Person X feels that proposal A or object A is bad.
Person Z also feels that proposal A or object A is bad.

Person X isn’t conscious that the way he feels and values a thing is not the thing itself.
Person Z is conscious that his feelings about an object are not part of the object itself.

Person X says that object A is bad, that it is immoral
Person Z says that the object is neither morally good nor bad, and that whether we call it depends on our predisposition. Person Z further maintains that we should discuss rationally the issues at hand, not throw about our emotions in fits of righteousness – the way we feel about it should be private and we shouldn’t attempt to force our value judgements and feelings onto others.

Person X petitions for person Z’s UKL account to be deactivated.
0
Adhsur
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report 15 years ago
#17
(Original post by Just an LSE guy)
What is morality? Morality is simply feelings and values – they are not the object themselves.

Person X feels that proposal A or object A is bad.
Person Z also feels that proposal A or object A is bad.

Person X isn’t conscious that the way he feels and values a thing is not the thing itself.
Person Z is conscious that his feelings about an object are not part of the object itself.

Person X says that object A is bad, that it is immoral
Person Z says that the object is neither morally good nor bad, and that whether we call it depends on our predisposition. Person Z further maintains that we should discuss rationally the issues at hand, not throw about our emotions in fits of righteousness – the way we feel about it should be private and we shouldn’t attempt to force our value judgements and feelings onto others.

Person X petitions for person Z’s UKL account to be deactivated.
What about consensus of morality? The majority's say counts...and the majority don't want mindless killing of innocent people.

Morality is not just subjective, it is evolutionary as well - not only desirable but necessary.
0
elpaw
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#18
why should eugenics be about killing people?

it already happens daily, with men and women chosing their most adequate partner. is this not eugenics? "modern" eugenics only accelerates this process.
0
Just an LSE guy
Badges:
#19
Report 15 years ago
#19
(Original post by Adhsur)
What about consensus of morality? The majority's say counts...and the majority don't want mindless killing of innocent people.

Morality is not just subjective, it is evolutionary as well - not only desirable but necessary.
Every single human throughout history could believe that X is bad, but that does not change the fact that value judgements and feelings exist within the mind and psycho-somatic body respectively and are not the object itself. Indeed X could be very harmful to humans but that still does not mean that the object itself is bad, only that us humans judge X to be bad based upon our perspective, predisposition, and position.

And, true, morality is not subjective - the concept of morality, ie that objects are inherently good and evil etc independently of a perceiver, cannot exist as a subjective concept, only as an objective claim. And since only the most ignorant would believe their feelings are part of the object itself the days of morality are numbered. Morality, as I said, is simply the unconscious assumption that how we feel about an object is an objective part of the object itself. When one is conscious of the distinction of the perceived from the perceiver, and the role of perception, the concept of morality is dissolved with other ignorance.
0
Adhsur
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report 15 years ago
#20
(Original post by elpaw)
why should eugenics be about killing people?

it already happens daily, with men and women chosing their most adequate partner. is this not eugenics? "modern" eugenics only accelerates this process.
Oooops, I thought this was a thread on morality. Doh.

Yes I have no problem with it if through this process we are able to get rid of unhealthy genes.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

If you're planning on going to uni this year, would any of these financial reasons stop you?

Not being able to work now to save up for uni (92)
13.94%
Reduced household income due to coronavirus means I can't afford to go (54)
8.18%
Lack of part-time jobs to support me while I'm at uni (85)
12.88%
Lack of graduate job prospects when I finish uni (79)
11.97%
Other reasons are stopping me going (84)
12.73%
Nothing is stopping me going (266)
40.3%

Watched Threads

View All