Also, there is an universal law to this theory which states that one's actions are based on maxims only that would be accepted as universal law and that the principle of any action should be applicable in any situation. Thus, in this case the use of eugenics to improve the future generations of the human race, notwithstanding the outcome, was ethically incorrect as the decision to breach the rights of other individuals is universally considered to be immoral.
Although from the perspective from an utilitarian, this decision based on eugenics can be seen much differently. The principle of utilitarianism states that: if an action aims at bringing about happiness for a maximum amount of people, then the action can be considered to be correct.
Hence the act of Eugenics was the right thing to do as although it harmed a some people, it was still beneficial for
…show more content…
Furthermore, the counterclaim explains the fact that the way an individual chooses to act based on their possession of knowledge, undoubtedly carries an ethical responsibility also.
Anyone with the possession of knowledge is forced to assess the potential consequences of their actions. My overall outlook on the referenced claim is that if you possess the knowledge to determine right from wrong from other types of knowledge gained, you have the responsibility to make ethical decisions.
Thus, any individual with the possession of knowledge must assess the possible consequences of their actions. Hence as an overall outlook, we can safely conclude that if an individual posses any sort of knowledge, he must evaluate the rights from the wrongs and choose ethically, what to do with the knowledge he possesses.
Word Count: 1,323
Darwinists in turn, believed biology to be destiny and that if one's ancestors were unfit their children would be as well. Much like in evolution, Spencer assumed that the unfit populations would decline overtime due to their failure to compete, however paranoia led some Americans to speed up this process, introducing eugenics. Eugenics were supposed to improve men, ridding the undesirable traits of the unfit and changing genetic structure to create more fit individuals. The Eugenics movement in America took people of color, the mentally ill or disabled, LGBTQ individuals, and other members of society deemed unfit, and conducted experimentation ranging from forced breeding, involuntary sterilization, or institutionalization on them. Although the movement was eventually stomped out, it violated thousands of
Eugenics is not a thought of morale and is not designed to save the entire human race, just the upper socioeconomic class. In North Carolina, feeble minded individuals were used as subjects for all kinds of genocidal experiments. Feeble minded simply means someone who suffers from an illness or mental deficiency and are often easier persuaded because they think they are getting help when they were really being coerced into becoming a test
The supreme court was approaching the subject by looking out for the population as a whole, rather than as individuals. The intentions of the movement were to eliminate the passing of specific traits that socially unfit person’s possessed and to isolate traits that were considered socially superior. The social incentives were based off of a utilitarian point of view, in that it may have hurt individuals, but it will ultimately better society. The values of this time period can be seen as continuing segregation, not just with race, but with disability and mental illnesses. The reasoning behind the eugenics movement, as stated by the supreme court, was “instead of waiting to execute degenerative offspring for crime… society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind”.
The Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering also show that genetic engineering can lead to overpopulation and wars. First of all, in Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut Jr., everyone is the same and they have strict laws. In Harrison Bergeron, people are made to be the same by putting weights on strong people, making beautiful people wear ugly masks, and hindering smart people’s thoughts. In Jonas’ community, there is Sameness, which is making everything the
“They (eugenicists) believe that human beings are inherently no different than animals, and therefore we can and should be bred like animals.” Eugenicists think that since we humans and animals are both mammals, that we can both endure the same dangerous tests. The results will be different for different animals and humans. It is true that the human race is animals, but in no way should we be treated as animals. Eugenicists use the same tests that are used on cows for testing as they do for humans.
In 1917, a law was passed creating the Oregon State Board of Eugenics. Eugenics is the concept of promoting people with sought after physical and mental traits to reproduce in order to enhance society. The board was allowed to sterilize inmates and patients in prisons and mental institutions, and if they could not reproduce, the thought was it would improve society. However, in 1983 the law was abolished. Sterilizing people does not stop the following generation from having physical or mental abnormalities nor does it prevent crime, using genetics to predict the mental state of future generations is not logical, and the sterilizations were unfair and inhumane.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, eugenics is: “a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed”. ("Definition of Eugenics by Merriam-Webster") The most common example of this concept would be the Holocaust, which was the extermination of Jewish people and others deemed “unfit” for society in World War Ⅱ. But little do many know, the Nazi’s were not the only people practicing eugenics in the early 1900’s, eugenics was being practiced in the United States long before the Holocaust. The American Eugenics Society aimed to educate American people on the science of Eugenics.
Eugenics is the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable. This belief that eugenics was not scientific was shown by a scientific article entitled "The Progress of Eugenics." In this article, biologists state that eugenics is not scientific because people will never know what traits will be desired in the future, and it is best to just let natural selection take its course. This is shown by biologist Huxley when he states that there is "no hope that mere human beings will ever possess enough intelligence to select the fittest. " This shows that some aspects of the Progressive Era, such as the belief that eugenics was bad, were
Editing of the human genome in the past has been only a sight seen in dystopia works such as Brave New World. Now, genetic enhancement is a prevalent today and people are beginning to realize the issues that can arise from creating these designer babies. Gene editing can be helpful to eradicate life changing disabilities. Yet, the term disability does not correctly label these differently abled people, as the idea of what is considered disabled has changed overtime. To fully understand the consequences and implications of genetic selection and enhancement of human embryos, society must mature and declare lines of what is and is not ethically moral.
Though eugenics may begin with good intentions, through events such as The Holocaust, one can see how quickly the good intentions can be twisted and turned into something vile and inhumane. It really boils down to the fact that yes, the human race is imperfect. But in that imperfection beauty is found in the diversity as well as progress. If humans were all perfect specimens, there would be no reason to dream or hope for a better tomorrow. The dreamers are the ones who advance society and always have been.
That is my point Mr. Samuels. There’s a difference between using gene therapy for the treatment of existing medical conditions, and using our growing, but far from perfect, knowledge of genes to declare that we absolutely know who has a right and who hasn’t to live at all.” To me, what this quote is saying is, just because we can doesn’t mean we should. Even if we could see if a baby is not going to be healthy or “perfect” when it is born, do we have the right to deny it life? This is an extremely hard ethical decision to make.
Parker Garland Dr. Wion Ethics 12/10/16 Utilitarianism and Abortion Imagine how the world would be if everybody consistently acted in a manner in which what was best for everyone and animals was the main goal of each and every action and decision made. Do you think the world would be a better place? The is what the moral theory of Utilitarianism argues that it would be. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that believes that the best action is the one that maximizes utility.
Eugenics or “good breeding” is meant to improve the human race through the gene pool using various methods. Similar to designer babies, the process could be used for good, but like Colin Tudge points out, “…although guns and bombs can be used as agents of peace, [humans] should not be overly surprised when in practice they are used to make war” (Tudge 282). Eugenics can be performed simply by regulating who and who cannot mate. It can also be done by sterilization, a procedure that permanently blocks pregnancy in a woman, which was a reality for many. The most famous account was performed by Germany, specifically the Nazis, during WWII, when 400,000 women were sterilized (Tudge 284).
One of the furthermost essential issues in biomedical ethics is the controversy around abortion. There’s a long history on this controversy and it is still critically debated among researchers and the public in both terms of morality and legality. Some of the basic questions argued that may perhaps characterize the importance of the issue: Is abortion morally justifiable? Does the foetus/embryo/zygote have any moral and legal rights? Is the foetus a human being and, if so, should it be protected?
Eugenics could make the human race more tough in terms of surviving epidemics or apocalyptic conditions which could wipe us off the face of the Earth as it is an attempt to improve the human gene pool .It could get rid of genetic diseases(from common ones like type 1 diabetes to severe ones like cystic fibrosis) which cause grief to family members, reduce quality of life and costs a lot of maintain life or treat, furthermore it could greatly increase our lifespan which is all good individually but it may have consequences as a species since competition for already scarce resources may increase if the birth rate is not controlled (is that ethical as well?), overpopulation could cause a greater anthropogenic pollution of the Earth leading to our doom which started off as a way to improve our lifestyle could lead to more industry to support the higher population leading to larger ozone holes more melting of polar icecaps and higher rising of sea levels and more cases of skin cancer. We would be playing god, altering a sort of natural cycle which regulates the population or cause a frenzy where everyone wants perfection where there could be discrimination where people can’t afford or are in no situation to receive the advantages of eugenics. In this case we should make eugenics widely and cheaply available but a question arises whether that is practically possible. Therefore eugenics also touches on other controversial topics like IVF, PID an