Refusing To Believe Early Progressives Loved Eugenics Will Not Erase The Horrible Truth
After seeing the end result [of pushing eugenics in the early 20th century] in the Holocaust, progressives naturally sought to bury their connection to this genocidal concept, and succeeded in doing so, at least when they can discredit conservatives who persist in mentioning it. That problem bubbled to the surface last week when Bloomberg’s economist and writer Noah Smith tweeted, “Apparently some people believe that eugenics was the scientific consensus 100 years ago. Sounds like a total myth to me.”
Smith should quit skipping history shows. All the enlightened people believed in eugenics; it was only the unwashed and the retrograde who said no.
From an interview here at Uncommon Descent, whose contents are not controversial or disputed
Oh well, in a post-fact science age, it is just so Cool to be able to afford that level of ignorance.
Eugenics is the ultimate in imposing one’s “morality” and “values” on others.
Christians see the beauty and inestimable value of those so often rejected by the world. Emma Lazarus described such human “rubbish” this way in her poem The New Colossus:
Such “wretched refuse,” who the Nazis, Margaret Sanger and the very worldly considered “life unworthy of life,” are Christ Himself in the least of His brethren whose very existence was seen as a “problem” to be solved or a “mistake” to be erased. The worldly will regret having that attitude towards them one day:
They are not “life unworthy of life.” They are our opportunity to express our response to the love Christ showed us.
See also: To All of Those We Mutilated, “Our Bad, But At Least We Weren’t Science Deniers” My word, no. they were total Science Acceptance bunnies. Call it science and they accept it.
But Cool means that Smith is right and some dumbass hillbilly historian is wrong, no matter what the facts say. That’s the beauty of post-fact science.
These situations also help explain why a lot of scientists are out marchin’, marchin’ to get back credibility they have lost, among the declining few who believe that facts do matter.
Oh never mind. The facts can always be discredited in one superlative tweet.
I guess the real question is whether science has the moral obligation , or if society does. My understanding is that science is amoral (not immoral). Science has brought us nuclear medicine. Society has brought us nuclear bombs. Science has brought us vaccines. Society has brought us biological weapons.
hammaspeikko @ 4.
Reify much?
Look up what “reify” means. Then your error will be clear to you.
Barry, all I am suggesting is that it is society (government, dictators, monarchies) who are responsible for how knowledge is used. Not the people discovering that knowledge. When we discover something new, do you really expect the discoverers to have figured out all possible evil (or poor) uses of their discovery?
I am very able to descern News’s titles, they usually have openings such as, ‘Guess What..’, or, ‘Coffee…’, or ‘Darwinbots Say…’ etc etc.
Now I am seeing a patern as desperation replaces ‘research’, at the DI.
‘Suck it up Buttercup.’ Really!? In what conceivable way does this post aid ID? If anything isn’t eugenics designing intelligently.
We have weak and sick members of society so we remove them. Sounds entirely logical and ‘designed’ to me.
Of course as an atheist I must object, based upon my atheistic morality that says, ‘if I do that to them, might not they do that to me?’ Or more simply, ‘I am a human being, and this is wrong.’ The people who fought a war with, Gott mit uns’, on their belt buckles would of course disagree with my materialist conclusions.
Another nail in the coffin of evolutionary biology, thunders into the world of science, courtesy of the research wing of the DI.
Evolutionary biology reels.
I have 3-4 books from the 1920’s that speak glowingly of eugenics, and the tie into evolution. In fact, H. G. Wells’ (et al) book, _The Science of Life_ speaks of it, and the authors’ state that their only optimism for the future of humanity lies in our implementing eugenics.
One of the books is a high school text that my father and aunt used in the early 1930’s.
Like the Holocaust, progressives are now embarrassed by their predecessors having embraced eugenics. But I shall retain these books as proof that it was a popular idea.
rvb8:
Your “atheistic morality” should inform you that they might do it to you anyway, and if you do it first and best you’ll probably get away with it.
rvb8
“If anything isn’t eugenics designing intelligently.”
Hardly. It starts from the assumption of “poor design,” which is manifestly Darwinian.
RVB8, we are still waiting on your list of challenges to Christians. Pardon a cross-thread note but a necessity in the wider work of UD. KF
News, I think the real issue is that Eugenics shows how dangerously wrong a “consensus” of our “betters” can be, even one dressed up in the wonderful lab coat or Doctor’s coat. But then, if we paid attention to Ari in The Rhetoric, Bk 1 Ch 2, we would long since have understood that persuasive appeals play on pathos, ethos, logos. Where, emotions are no sounder than underlying perceptions and judgements, no authority is better than facts and reasoning tied to quality of premises, so to the facts and logic we must go. Which, at minimum, is very much an acquired taste. KF
harry @ 4 – I hope you’re aware that some (possibly many) who supported eugenics thought as you do. JBS Haldane springs to mind.
You claim that “Eugenics is the ultimate in imposing one’s “morality” and “values” on others” seems hyperbolic. Especially as prominent eugenicists from the left wrote a manifesto where they were explicit that a couple’s “artificial … control over the processes of parentage” would always be voluntary. (actually, that manifesto is fascinating in that so much of what it lays out is not about genetics at all).
The problem with the eugenics movement was that it jumped the gap between ‘is’ and ‘ought’. Science had revealed something of what ‘is’ but it was society – or at least a broad cross-section of the most influential figures in society – that decided how it ought to be implemented. There were certainly scientists who advocated it but, on their own, they could no more have applied it then than they could today. It required not just the endorsement but the active promotion of eugenics by a range of politicians, academics and religious leaders and groups for it to be implemented to the extent it was, including what we now regard as the most notorious breaches of human rights and medical ethics. Science played a role but that doesn’t get those other groups off the hook.
CannuckianYankee @ 10
Hardly. It starts from the observation of what looks like “poor design,” which is manifestly what we would expect to see from a Darwinian perspective
Seversky@14, I agree. All science did was to provide some sort of justification for people/society/the powers that be/ to do what they always wanted to do. Just as the bible was used to justify slavery, bigotry, the crusades and homophobia. None of these can be rationally justified, but if given the false authority of science or religion, any number of atrocious things can be “justified”.
hammaspeikko @ 16, your litany sounds like left wing talking points that lack content or context…
Slavery — it was Christians who worked to abolish chattel slavery (see William Wilberforce) and it was condemned with the death penalty in the Bible.
“Kidnappers must be put to death, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves.” Exodus 21:16 (NLT)
Bigotry — condemned all through the Bible along with envy, jealousy, covetousness, etc.
The Crusades — a defensive war against Islam which arose 500 years after Christianity and was intent on overtaking “Christendom.” Were there abuses? Of course. Every war has abuses but the Crusades themselves were not an illegitimate use of power any more than the French resistance was to the Nazis.
Homophobia? What does that contentless word mean? Fear of homosexuals? Being mean to homosexuals? I am neither afraid of homosexuals nor do I treat them with disrespect, but neither of those things mean that I should be forced to accept their behavior as normal. I believe those practicing homosexuality to be made in the image of God which is the same view that I have of rapists and child molesters and other democrats, but homosexuality is condemned in the Bible as a moral perversion, just as rape, adultery and the aforementioned, envy and jealousy. If calling homosex, perversion, makes me a homophobe, then so be it, but you really should find a new word, as agreeing with the Bible that homosex is a moral perversion, does not translate into being afraid of homosexuals.
Have people throughout history tried to appeal to the Bible to justify evil? Of course, but that’s not the Bible’s fault and much of the evil laid at the Bible’s feet, is more myth than reality.
Florabama: “Have people throughout history tried to appeal to the Bible to justify evil? Of course, but that’s not the Bible’s fault and much of the evil laid at the Bible’s feet, is more myth than reality.”
I wasn’t trying to say that it was the bible’s fault. Any more than the mis-use of knowledge is science’s fault. Scientific theories such as those proposed by Newton, Einstein and Darwin have all been used for immoral purposes. That doesn’t mean that any of these theories is wrong. Whether or not they are wrong is based on the evidence supporting them.
Darwinism is not morally neutral. If true it has moral implications — in fact if true, morality is only a mythical construct. The male tiger which kills the cubs of the rival male so he can mate with the female, has not committed a moral evil has he? If evolution is true, how are we different than the tiger?
Florabama: “Darwinism is not morally neutral.”
Sure it is. It is how we deal with it that has moral implications. The same applies to Newton (using his theory to direct mortar assaults) and Einstein (using his theory to build nuclear weapons).
“If evolution is true, how are we different than the tiger?”
No stripes.
HP, whether in darwinist form or in the more ancient sophistical one, evolutionary materialism is inherently amoral. Plato:
KF
Kairosfocus: “HP, whether in darwinist form or in the more ancient sophistical one, evolutionary materialism is inherently amoral.”
As are all scientific theories. Evolutionary theory is either a good explanation of reality or it is not. Just because we don’t like the implications if it happened to be true doesn’t change the fact that the theory itself is morally neutral.
There would only be implications if your theory has built-in philosophy or cosmology.
You are tripping over what it means to a larger picture that is not necessarily scientifically painted.
Not an amoral activity.
Andrew
HP, pardon directness but no. Science is a reasoned, responsible activity that seeks the empirically grounded truth about our world through investigations, analysis, discussion of findings etc. All of this is deeply pervaded with soberingly challenging moral duties. Truthfulness in reporting of observations, diligence in designing and implementing investigations, courage to stand against the tide if necessary and more are all implied. As, BTW is the premise that to be rational, we must be responsibly free and capable of making proper insight driven logical inferences. Going beyond, at all times, a Scientist is duty bound by the normal principles of responsible citizenship and of being a good neighbour — especially, a highly educated one. Indeed, your response is highlighting to me again the need for a standardised Ethics of Science course in science major programmes, similar to the ones often termed Engineer in Society. A key anchor point for such would be case studies on key and reasonably relevant history, including especially the story of eugenics. The story on the development, design and use of nuclear weapons is also a second, chilling case — and we need to study both the German and the Allied sides, also the Russian side given how espionage pervaded the Manhattan Project. The resort to gas warfare a century past now is yet another case, one where I think it was Haber (of Haber Synthesis) will not come off well at all. Somewhere in there we need to distinguish ethically sound studiousness and inquisitiveness from vicious curiosity — a theme that came out in H G Wells’ novels. And yes I deliberately gave one bio-med, one physics, one chem. The story of the Scientific Revolution, soundly studied could move beyond hagiography, too. BTW, I think most medical programmes do have such a component, and Med is in effect an applied science. Those scientists who become applied, in addition, need to do engineer in society stuff. Educators, need exposure to ethics of education. Truth be told, if a lot of that were actually done and taken seriously, much of the hot and nasty controversy and tactics surrounding the debates over the design inference would simply evaporate. KF
Did Darwin himself personally advocate eugenics? In this controversial quote from The Descent of Man it appears that he did.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Notable_Charles_Darwin_misquotes
I think the Wikiquote’s contributor is correct when he/she says that Ben Stein in the film documentary Expelled over reached when he suggested “that Darwin provided a [direct] rationale for the activities of the Nazis.” Indeed, there is no evidence that Darwin would have had kind of sympathy for the Nazis. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean that he had nothing to do with eugenics (please note carefully the lines I have italicized above,) which was used in America to forcefully sterilize members of society who were deemed to be unfit or undesirable. That did in turn, however, provide an indirect rationale for the Nazi eugenics program, which in 1940 went beyond involuntary sterilization to involuntary euthanasia, and that was only the beginning…
However, modern day supporters of Darwin don’t even want to acknowledge that much. In her book review of John West’s book, Darwin Day in America, Anne Barbeau Gardiner writes:
According to Gardiner, West also argues that it is clear that “Darwin prepared the way for eugenics,” because, “his immediate family… [became] involved in [the] movement — his sons George and Leonard became active in promoting it (Leonard serving as “president of the Eugenics Education Society, the main eugenics group in Great Britain”), and his cousin Francis Galton became the founder of the “eugenics crusade.” Evidently, Darwin was sympathetic to eugenics: West quotes him as vowing ‘to cut off communication’ with his disciple Mivart when the latter ‘criticized an article by Darwin’s son George that advocated eugenics.’”
http://www.discovery.org/a/7251
However, I think the most alarming two lines of Darwin’s, The Descent of Man, quote are the following:
“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts…”
If you accept Darwin’s thinking and the materialism it was based on, the “foundation” for modern morality is only, “an incidental [accidental?] result of the instinct of sympathy…”
Of course, I would hardly call that a foundation.
john_a_designer @ 25
I would call that perhaps the best foundation there could be.
If we acknowledge the is/ought problem then we must accept that neither atheism nor materialism, as claims about what is , can provide grounds for moralities which prescribe how we ought to behave towards one another.
In fact, I would argue that it is precisely our capacity for sympathy and empathy that is most likely to ensure that we treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves.
Or, to put it another way, for a Trekkie like myself, there is this exchange from the original series episode The Immunity Syndrome
seversky @ 26
I don’t get your argument.
I can see, that empathy and sympathy give us a reason to “treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves”.
But sympathy and empathy are feelings, and as feelings go, they can be manipulated. And they get manipulated. P.e. politicians do this all the time for quite a lot of ignoble reasons.
And since we know, that such feelings can be manipulated, we can choose to ignore them at times.
So we must take into account that we might act sympathetically, because we are manipulated without realizing this fact, or we might act not sympathetically, because we think we are manipulated. And in addition we might choose ignore our sympathetic emotions at times for purely selfish and/or immoral reasons.
A foundation for morality is something, that gives us a compelling reason to accept moral prescriptions as binding on us. It is hard to see, how an emotion that is possibly manipulated can compel us not to ignore it.
An if we see empathy and sympathy as incidental evolutionary traits, then there is even less reason not to ignore them from time to time. Saying “this emotion would have helped our forefathers 200.000 years ago to survive in the savannah” is hardly a reason to see my emotions as compelling moral prescriptions, since I live far removed from any savannah.
In the light of this your argument doesn’t really address the problem.
I didn’t get, what Mr. Spock and Captain Kirk provided as support for your position, but I’m not really a star trek fan.
BTW I see that you chose not to answer my post here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-626114
hgp,
Indeed, like you, I and others have been over this same ground again and again.
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-625789
Here is a reminder, eugenics, has never really gone away. It’s just that it’s advocates no longer call it that.
In other words, “fertility management,” is one of the new terms for eugenics.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/.....sive-views
john_a_designer @ 29
Since we are recycling old posts, here is my previous response:
hgp @ 27
Which is more likely to move people to act in a certain way, emotion or reason?
So do advertisers. But while politicians may be able to sway your vote and advertisers influence your choice of smartphone, could either of them persuade you to kill yourself or murder your family or friends?
I’m sure that you, like everyone else here, would go to great lengths to protect your family and friends. I’m equally sure you can understand others doing the same for their family and friends. My argument is that those shared interests and empathy for others is a much surer basis for morality than anything else.
At a fundamental level have human needs and interests really changed much in all that time? The advantages of co-operating with our fellows in society are just as real now as they were 200,000 years ago.
I just quoted that little exchange because it was making the same point as I am.
john_a_designer,
I don’t know how anyone can read that as anything but an argument against eugenics (and if the same words were said by pretty much anyone else I have little doubt that that’s how it would be read).
Could there possibly be some benefits to enforced selective breeding and humans abandoning all feelings of sympathy? Maybe. Even the typical young-earth Creationist would admit that, for instance, some hereditary diseases may be eliminated. But at what cost? Any (potential) benefits would be greatly outweighed by the negatives. What is there to disagree with?
Also, Darwin didn’t give proponents of eugenics anything that they hadn’t had for centuries, even millennia (Plato advocated a form of eugenics far more extreme than anything promoted by anyone in Darwin’s family).
It wasn’t Mivart’s objection to eugenics that upset Darwin and caused him to cut off communication. Most of Darwin’s closest friends were extremely anti-eugenics. T. H. Huxley, for instance, made numerous, strongly worded arguments, against eugenics:
“There is no hope that mere human beings will ever possess enough intelligence to select the fittest.”
“I do not see how such selection could be practiced without a serious weakening, it may be the destruction, of the bonds which hold society together.”
“I sometimes wonder whether people, who talk so freely about extirpating the unfit, ever dispassionately consider their own history. Surely, one must be very “fit,” indeed, not to know of an occasion, or perhaps two, in one’s life, when it would have been only too easy to qualify for a place among the “unfit.””
And Huxley was equally angered at Mivart: “If anybody tries that on with my boy Leonard the old wolf will shew all the fangs he has left by that time, depend upon it.”
What angered Charles was that Mivart was malicious and completely misrepresented what his son George had wrote – he even encouraged George to take Mivart to court for libel.
Charles, BTW, had cut off communication with Mivart years earlier because of Mivart doing that same thing against him:
https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-8145.xml
https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-8156A.xml
Darwin, in light of Mivart committing the same offense – this time against his son – merely reiterated his earlier letters.