Shane Mage wrote: > Is there any sense in which those who did *not* advocate sterilization were > responsible for the Hitlerite policies?
I can't think of any, but there are other dimensions of politics besides advocacy of sterilization that are akin to Hitler's policies. In any event, there are different degrees of adherence to eugenicist doctrine: some go all the way with eugenics (and thus down the road to perdition), while others' proposals are moderated by human sympathy. Darwin, it seems (according to the less-than-reliable Wikipedia) thought that eugenics could work but that our natural sympathy for others could and should prevent us from using it on our fellow humans. It quotes his DESCENT OF MAN: >>Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who >>has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be >>highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of >>care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; >>but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to >>allow his worst animals to breed. >>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, but subsequently rendered, in the manner >>previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we >>check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration >>in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst >>performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his >>patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it >>could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. >>... We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving >>and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in >>steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not >>marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased >>by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to >>be hoped for than expected.<< > Incidentally, shouldn't there be some way to differentiate "eugenics" as > concept (essentially, selective breeding--which nobody objects to in the > case of any animal or plant species except for homo sapiens sapiens--and > nowadays direct genetic manipulation, which some object to in the case of > other favored species as well as sap sap) from "Eugenics" as social movement > or state policy? That's a good and useful distinction, but I haven't seen it used. When I used the term "eugenics" earlier in this thread, I was referring to the specific version applied to people. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
