Post by rollerk on Sept 29, 2017 23:57:30 GMT
Eugenics is the selective breeding of humans to increase or at least maintain the intelligence level of the human population.
As previously stated in this forum, one problem is that we can't even agree on a definition of what intelligence is. How, then, could we possibly believe that we are able to judge who is intelligent enough to reproduce. I also really liked the argument given previously that Galton's idea of eugenics could only be effective if intelligence was to a greater degree hereditary rather than a result of environment.
The greatest problem with Galton's idea of Eugenics that I see is that humanity's ideas and ideals are continuously evolving. Even if we could agree upon a current universal definition of intelligence and even if intelligence was largely hereditary, there is no evidence that we would not have to redefine this "universal" definition in the future. Our pool of information is continually growing. Our culture is continuously evolving. If we were to put into practice this idea of eugenics based on the belief that humanity is now enlightened enough to do so, we may grow in understanding in the future and end up regretting this choice when we realise our "enlightened" state was still quite limited in understanding.
I also see inconsistencies between the average scientist's beliefs surrounding evolution and the emphatic opposition to eugenics. If evolution is truly fluid, which most scientists will agree to, then there can be no absolute morality. Morality must also be fluid. An absolute morality (right vs. wrong) and absolute ideas (such as intelligence) cannot truly exist in an fluid evolutionary modal. It must be given room to evolve. How can eugenics be absolutely "wrong" within this fluidity?
Personally, I find Galton's idea of eugenics a very slippery slope. As previously cited, Nazi's, slavery, and all kinds of injustices have resulted as a result of this kind of thinking. I believe in equality as an absolute ideal. I believe that every human is entitled to exercise their free will so long as it doesn't impose on the free will of others. I believe in absolute morality and so, I believe that every human has an intrinsic moral compass, and that this is proof of the existence of higher power.
Galton's idea of eugenics, is simply taking the standard understanding of evolutionary theory to it's furthest conclusion. If we do not examine these kinds of ideas to there furthest conclusion, how can we truly say that we believe them? Examining the deepest implications of our values and beliefs is necessary to maintain a positive trend in evolution. It is right that we reject Galton's idea of eugenics, but we must also examine why we reject it so adamantly and the implication of this powerful rejection.
As previously stated in this forum, one problem is that we can't even agree on a definition of what intelligence is. How, then, could we possibly believe that we are able to judge who is intelligent enough to reproduce. I also really liked the argument given previously that Galton's idea of eugenics could only be effective if intelligence was to a greater degree hereditary rather than a result of environment.
The greatest problem with Galton's idea of Eugenics that I see is that humanity's ideas and ideals are continuously evolving. Even if we could agree upon a current universal definition of intelligence and even if intelligence was largely hereditary, there is no evidence that we would not have to redefine this "universal" definition in the future. Our pool of information is continually growing. Our culture is continuously evolving. If we were to put into practice this idea of eugenics based on the belief that humanity is now enlightened enough to do so, we may grow in understanding in the future and end up regretting this choice when we realise our "enlightened" state was still quite limited in understanding.
I also see inconsistencies between the average scientist's beliefs surrounding evolution and the emphatic opposition to eugenics. If evolution is truly fluid, which most scientists will agree to, then there can be no absolute morality. Morality must also be fluid. An absolute morality (right vs. wrong) and absolute ideas (such as intelligence) cannot truly exist in an fluid evolutionary modal. It must be given room to evolve. How can eugenics be absolutely "wrong" within this fluidity?
Personally, I find Galton's idea of eugenics a very slippery slope. As previously cited, Nazi's, slavery, and all kinds of injustices have resulted as a result of this kind of thinking. I believe in equality as an absolute ideal. I believe that every human is entitled to exercise their free will so long as it doesn't impose on the free will of others. I believe in absolute morality and so, I believe that every human has an intrinsic moral compass, and that this is proof of the existence of higher power.
Galton's idea of eugenics, is simply taking the standard understanding of evolutionary theory to it's furthest conclusion. If we do not examine these kinds of ideas to there furthest conclusion, how can we truly say that we believe them? Examining the deepest implications of our values and beliefs is necessary to maintain a positive trend in evolution. It is right that we reject Galton's idea of eugenics, but we must also examine why we reject it so adamantly and the implication of this powerful rejection.