Morality is a result of the fact that actions have consequences. The consequences are independent of our preferences and are fairly stable over time.
Harming other people has adverse consequences for the person doing the harm as well as the person harmed. This fact is also fairly constant over time. This is a fairly subtle point that may not be learned except by parental teaching and example. That fact that some people don’t learn it does not mean it isn’t objectively true.
As for eugenics, it was first proposed in writing by Plato. I think you will find the equivalent of the Nazi program fully specified thousands of years before modern science.
Actions still have a cause (human for this discussion), what are our actions caused by? brain-biochemical/electrical programming, what caused the Totality of our thoughts or “will”? is there a cause of morality/”will” that is independent of biochemical/electrical programming (or can we do only what is determined by our Programming?). Is that all we are?
Parents do not escape this, Parental teachings still have a source. to be objective it still needs a source outside of/independent of the parental or non-parental (insert any name you wish) mind(by definition: subjective).
I never suggest “eugenics” was a scientist original (I guess in “your” terminology that would be a very nice “straw man”). merely “they” start/use the (unoriginal if you like) premise: that the totality (sole cause) of human existence is determined by inherited programmed traits(ie genetics)this includes all behaviors?
with a 1A premise: that by using death of individuals as a consequence for undesirable traits as determined/classified with the help “scientist” (again all actions are traits from premise 1) they can select for a “healthy population”
why would “science/ist” by into those premises, unoriginal as they may be?
I tried to directly answered your question why “clergy” would buy into those premises? why do avoid the same question directed at a different group?
perceived current or past stability speaks only as a snap shot,just as direction-less changes over time, doesn’t preclude stability in traits, it doesn’t guarantee continued stability in traits. change the consequence to the trait, change the behavior(al trait).
sorry, more accurately you asked why “clergy” bought into claims of Hitlers GODesque TALK...my question was a similar aimed based on a different group.
both are question deal with ideas that are unorginal,to nazism no?