Replies

"Eugenics as practiced by the Nazis is not the best path for human populations to take, we have recognized this and have consequently rejected it."

"Eugenics as practiced by the Nazis has been rejected on moral, not scientific, grounds.

Please quote the context along with the point made.

The quote of mine above was not about why or how we reject eugenics, it was a response to a poster trying to claim that we must accept processes and events if they can be considered 'natural' or part of natural selection.

That said, our moral fabric is very much based on what we consider to be best for our in-group, whether that in-group is our immediate family or the entire species. Not all moral rules are developed at the conscious level, many, especially those we consider universal, develop at the gene level. We are unique in the ability to articulate, consider and reject if necessary those gene level moral behaviours.

If you want to consider the world given Evolution as the only moral guide then you have to consider all of the mechanisms and their consequences not just the (subjectively) negative.

Most anti-evolutionists want to posit a Godless world of base Evolution in all of it's violence, death and struggle while ignoring the equally 'natural' morally positive aspects of Evolution - families, cooperation, sacrifice, support, caring, and compassion.

"It would be wrong to condemn them as bad experiments, if they were carried out on mice."

"- Benno Müller-Hill, Professor of Genetics at the University of Cologne, referring to Nazi experimentation upon human subjects (1984).

I agree with the author.

Are you suggesting that the way we treat mice should be identical to the way we treat humans and that the way we treat humans should be the same as the way we treat mice?

Are you suggesting that our morals are not 'natural' and natural selection could not produce such values?

Why are you giving the rejection of eugenics a 'special' moral position?

Eugenics is not just a process of 'improvement of the species' but carries a lot of other baggage.¹

It brings with it one group of humans determining the future of another group.
It brings with it the oppression of one group by another.
It brings with it the extinction of one group.
It brings with it the benefit to one group at the expense of another.
It brings with it the control of one group by another.
It brings with it the restriction of freedom of one group by another.

Even if we accept all of the above for organisms other than humans it does not mean we should accept them for humans.

1: I have to note here that Evolution is not about 'improvement' but about whatever features allow the organism to produce more offspring. If the eugenicists were really trying to use the ToE they would work on the reproductive ability not intelligence, hair color or ancestry. In todays climate that would be the best athletes, actors or rappers. ;)