Spirituality
23 Nov 06
23 Nov 06
Originally posted by HalitoseA) Define "eugenics"; I assume you're taking it to mean more than what Dawkins specifically was discussing i.e. breeding humans with certain "desirable" abilities.
[b]How's that a "problem"?
Uhm... well... From a purely evolutionary perspective (without a superior framework of morals to override or restrict), eugenics is a forgone conclusion.
And which one of Dawkins' examples "mathematical, musical, athletic" is a "useful" trait according to evolutionary theory?
All three could possibly be useful ...[text shortened]... athletic one is the classical example: run faster... avoid predators... catch prey, etc.[/b]
B) Why is it a problem if human beings are breed to increase the chances of having certain "desirable" abilities?
23 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderb) There will be no meaning of being human. We are different from animal because we mind. And because we have different mental abilities we have different chances in life. Different Jobs and different desires. If you born to be a scintest , you will have no choice, and you will be like an animal.
A) Define "eugenics"; I assume you're taking it to mean more than what Dawkins specifically was discussing i.e. breeding humans with certain "desirable" abilities.
B) Why is it a problem if human beings are breed to increase the chances of having certain "desirable" abilities?
23 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderA) Define "eugenics"; I assume you're taking it to mean more than what Dawkins specifically was discussing i.e. breeding humans with certain "desirable" abilities.
A) Define "eugenics"; I assume you're taking it to mean more than what Dawkins specifically was discussing i.e. breeding humans with certain "desirable" abilities.
B) Why is it a problem if human beings are breed to increase the chances of having certain "desirable" abilities?
Eugenics, n.,: the science of using controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics in a population.
B) Why is it a problem if human beings are breed to increase the chances of having certain "desirable" abilities?
By definition, there’d be humans who are less desirable when they don't exhibit these characteristics.
23 Nov 06
5 edits
Originally posted by Halitoseherein lies the rub: eugenics is perfectly consistent with a materialistic evolutionary perspective.
[b]...there is no possible way to argue logically from any set of purely descriptive claims (such as those that comprise evolutionary theory) to any single normative claim regarding eugenics or any other topic for that matter.
Agreed. Eugenics (as a normative proposition) cannot be derived from evolution by any form of rigorous deductive reasoning. T npublishing.com.au/sxnews/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=381&Itemid=40[/b]
So, your contention here is that a normative claim in support of eugenics is consistent (encounters no logical contradiction) with a perspective that espouses 1. support for the (descriptive) claim that all things that actually exist are material and 2. support for the (descriptive) claims that comprise evolutionary theory? So, basically you're saying that a normative claim in support of eugenics is logically consistent with a set of purely descriptive claims. No kidding! A normative claim against eugenics is logically consistent with such a set of descriptive claims, too. Any purely normative claim is similarly "consistent" with any set of purely descriptive claims.
Look, if you're trying to imply that a normative claim in support of eugenics is consistent with any perspective that happens to support both materialism and evolutionary theory, then you're just patently wrong. Obviously, the claim that eugenics is morally permissible is inconsistent with a perspective that supports materialism; evolutionary theory; and the claim that eugenics is morally impermissible.
but that breeding and the selection of useful traits is integral to evolutionary theory.
No. You're equivocating here on the term 'useful'. In evolutionary theory, this term would be a descriptive one, applied based on descriptive criteria (related to fitness, fecundity, reproductive success, etc.) that are largely applied posteriorly. In eugenics, "useful trait" is obviously used in a completely different (normative) sense.
You're also just demonstrating willful ignorance toward Dawkins' actual point. Nowhere in that short article does he support eugenics. In fact, the only conclusion that I can draw from the article itself is that, ultima facie, he sees good reasons against eugenics -- or at least good reasons to think eugenics introduces difficult moral considerations -- or at least good reasons to think the topic of whether or not eugenics is permissible requires closer scrutiny. What he IS supporting here is the idea that we strip away the topical baggage that is not relevant to the premise of eugenics and that we discuss the topic objectively. You have some problem with that?
23 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhen someone cannot see a clear moral difference between breeding and training, I don't need to put words into his mouth.
When someone cannot see a clear moral difference between breeding and training, I don't need to put words into his mouth.
[b]It's only your insatiable desire to demonize non-believers that causes you to see it any other way.
And here I thought that maybe calling your article "Eugenics May Not Be Bad" had something to do with it.
EDIT: Why posted so far in this thread and tell me who's putting words into someone else's mouth?[/b]
"I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me." (emphasis added)
Maybe it's not as "clear" as you would like, but he indicates that he does see a substantive moral difference.
23 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloDon't be so damned naïve. Of course Dawkins supports eugenics.
[b]herein lies the rub: eugenics is perfectly consistent with a materialistic evolutionary perspective.
So, your contention here is that a normative claim in support of eugenics is consistent (encounters no logical contradiction) with a perspective that espouses 1. support for the (descriptive) claim that all things that actually exist are material ugenics and that we discuss the topic objectively. You have some problem with that?[/b]
" .... that we discuss the topic objectively."
How naïve. Dawkins wants eugenics to be implemented in some way and wants to clear the way, but it is politically too early to take that stance, genius.
23 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeBy the way, you -- with your completely infantile methods of moral deliberation -- are one who could benefit from Dawkins' primary point here.
Don't be so damned naïve. Of course Dawkins supports eugenics.
" .... that we discuss the topic objectively."
How naïve. Dawkins wants eugenics to be implemented in some way and wants to clear the way, but it is politically too early to take that stance, genius.
23 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloDo you know Hawkins ? Do you know his ideology ? Well then, genius .... you can answer the question yourself ..... or are you also somebody who wants to discuss eugenics "objectively" and then decide you're in favour of it.
How would I know that? Demonstrate how this follows from the article Halitose posted, hoe.
You are also in favour of eugenics. If not, let me know.
Stop being naïve, stop playing the fool and stop deluding yourself and others.