Eugenics: Encyclopedia II - Eugenics - Criticism

Eugenics - Criticism

Eugenics - Pseudoscience

While the science of genetics has increasingly provided means by which certain characteristics and conditions can be identified and understood, given the complexity of human genetics and culture, there is no agreed objective means of determining which characteristics might be ultimately desirable or undesirable. If eugenicists claim that this can be determined by empirical investigation, they are vulnerable to the charge that their views amount to a pseudoscience, a term that refers to any field that isn't scientific but is sometimes erroneously regarded as such.

Eugenics - Objectification of hereditary traits

Some critics have argued, often on ethical grounds, that eugenic attitudes and practices may objectify human hereditary traits, placing too much emphasis or value on arbitrary characteristics rather than considering the individual as a whole. Objectification has also been raised as a concern in the medical treatment of patients in general.[7]

In this context, Tom Shakespeare, a sociologist and disability advocate, has argued that the new genomics "does not mark a radical departure" from the eugenic attitudes of the past (2002: 8-10), and that "the real problems of disabled people are social arrangements, not their impairments" [8].

Eugenics - Slippery slope

A commonly advanced criticism of eugenics is that, evidenced by its history, it inevitably leads to measures that are unethical (Lynn 2001). H. L. Kaye wrote of "the obvious truth that eugenics has been discredited by Hitler's crimes" (Kaye 1989). R. L. Hayman argued "the eugenics movement is an anachronism, its political implications exposed by the Holocaust" (Hayman 1990).

Steven Pinker has stated that it is "a conventional wisdom among left-leaning academics that genes imply genocide." He has responded to this "conventional wisdom" by comparing the history of Marxism, which had the opposite position on genes to that of Nazism:

But the 20th century suffered “two” ideologies that led to genocides. The other one, Marxism, had no use for race, didn't believe in genes and denied that human nature was a meaningful concept. Clearly, it's not an emphasis on genes or evolution that is dangerous. It's the desire to remake humanity by coercive means (eugenics or social engineering) and the belief that humanity advances through a struggle in which superior groups (race or classes) triumph over inferior ones.[9]

Richard Lynn argues that any social philosophy is capable of ethical misuse. Though Christian principles have aided in the abolition of slavery and the establishment of welfare programs, he notes that the Christian church has also burned many dissidents at the stake and waged wars against nonbelievers in which Christian crusaders slaughtered large numbers of women and children. Lynn argues the appropriate response is to condemn these killings, but believing Christianity "inevitably leads to the extermination of those who do not accept its doctrines" is unwarranted (Lynn 2001).

Eugenics - Genetic diversity

Eugenic policies could also lead to loss of genetic diversity, in which case a culturally accepted improvement of the gene pool may, but wouldn't necessarily, result in biological disaster due to increased vulnerability to disease, reduced ability to adapt to environmental change and other factors both known and unknown. This kind of argument from the precautionary principle is itself widely criticized.

The possible elimination of the autism genotype will likely renew the debate over eugenics. This is a significant political issue in the autism rights movement which claims autism is a form of neurodiversity.

Eugenics - Counterarguments

One website on logic has used the statement "Eugenics must be wrong because it was associated with the Nazis" as a typical example of the association fallacy. [10]

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Criticism", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki