Catholic Eugenics?

[RyanL]

Some of the most ethical persons I know of have been atheists.

That is completely irrelevant. That a person acts ethically doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not the intellectual basis for their ethics is sound.

Tom Cruise may be highly ethical, but his basis for so acting (Scientology) is completely ludicrous.

There is a huge literature on human rights out there, which is entirely independent of any metaphysical assumptions.

Any explicit statement, I agree. Those (like Peter Singer) who divorce human rights from metaphysics (1) (arbitrarily) deny human rights to certain humans (making them somewhat less than universal) and (2) tend to extend “human” rights to non-humans (making them somewhat other than human rights).

Those who *actually *argue for universal human rights either do so from a natural law foundation (like the Declaration of Independence) or do so with no foundation whatsoever, purely through legislative fiat – an infirm foundation if ever there was one!

Legal positivism and natural law theory are really the only two horses in the race regarding universal human rights, and legal positivism provides no means by which to condemn the greatest atrocities mankind has wrought.

Well, same thing there. There are different camps in analytical philosophy: some believe free will is incompatible with physicalism, some believe it is.

And some are wrong. For those with the courage to follow through the logical implications of their position, free will is seen to be not compatible with materialism. It’s a logical certainty. If your actions are purely caused, you’re not free.

This is very simple.

What I meant was more that the whole idea of what constitutes a free act is very problematic.

Not really.

It is practically very useful for us humans to speak as if there were free will…even though… the whole concept of a free act turns out incoherent.

I find this an odd statement from someone who earlier said the following:

Second, to deny or ignore the truth, lie to ourselves and other people, for the purpose of being able to indulge in reality-denying fantasies which make us feel good.

Do you want us to lie to ourselves or don’t you?

Of course there are free choices in the sense that we use this term in every day life.

Of course?!? And here I took you for a materialist who denied metaphysics! Backpedal, backpedal! Are we free or aren’t we?

The philosophical problem of whether these are truly free in a deeper sense (not predetermined by anything I assume - but then what/who decides the outcome?!) is another issue, which may not have much practical significance.

If we’re free, we are accountable for our actions. If we are not free, we are no longer accountable.

Why you think this shouldn’t have practical significance is beyond me.

I’ve met other people who jump to conclusions, but this is almost a world record .

Its not a jump to follow the logic to its rational conclusion. If when I say that two non-free things are equal I’m going too fast for you, please let me know.

Unless we accept your nebulous concept of “free will”, a human is not more worthful than a flatworm?

Nor is a human more worthful than a rock. If all we are is a collection of atoms, motion and rest, nothing more, why on earth would you value one bag-of-atoms over another? At least a rock doesn’t decompose as quickly as a human. Why is life significant? From a purely materialist perspective, I’m not even sure the word life has any real significance…is one atom alive and another dead? Then how does aggregating atoms impart some new property which wasn’t there before? How can you get more out of less? Logically, it doesn’t seem that you can. If you could, a perpetual motion machine wouldn’t seem so implausible.

Do you see? These are really very simple questions…

Well, what else? The complexity of the operations is of another order, though, and that matters.

Why? Why is something more valuable because it’s complex? There is great complexity in a flatworm…it can regenerate, we can’t…photosynthesis is also very complex…why don’t you place more value on organisms which can perform this complex task than on some synapses firing?

…cont’d…

 

[RyanL]

…cont’d…

[How do you know if something is good or bad?] Everyone knows they are. If someone stabs you in the back, would you say “hm, difficult question, is this a good thing or a bad thing… who I am to judge”?

I agree. Everyone really knows that there’s such a thing as good and evil, which makes me think that people who deny morality, free will and metaphysics don’t really believe what they’re saying. They’re playing make-believe, and usually doing it badly.

The reason we punish criminals is to reduce future crime.

Actually, there are (at least) four distinct penal theories. One is Deterrence (both general (societal) - and specific (individual)), which you cite. But there is also Rehabilitation, Retribution and Incapacitation. You may conflate the purposes, but the law does not.

That is also the reason we should avoid propagating genes that are coupled to high probability for criminal behavior.

If there’s a probability that the action could occur, you would “eliminate” the actor? Chilling. Truly chilling.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Academic]

Some years ago, there was a case where a girl gave birth in the lady’s room while attending a high school prom. She threw the baby in the trash – and was charged and pled guilty.

Now, I defy Academia or anyone else to tell me that if she had first plunged her nail scissors into the soft spot when the baby’s head crowned, and then expelled the little corpse that would not be a crime.

All living human beings have a right to life. If they do not, then there are not human rights at all, only priviliges which the government grants and can withhold at will.

Do you really believe I have these opinions or do you create your evil straw man to make me appear crazy to the casual reader? The scenario you describe is of course more or less equivalent to infanticide, but it has no relevance to the issues I’ve tried to discuss. And if you yourself seriously believe that plunging a knife into the head of a 9-month fetus is equivalent to washing away a in vitro fertilized egg cell you have a pretty twisted view of things.

 

[RyanL]

But these are really extensions that arise from the original idea, i.e. that normal humans are worthy of respect. The motivation is definitely not that there is something morally magical about having Homo sapiens DNA in itself!

So being human doesn’t give you human rights? Hmm…

So, in conclusion, what I’m saying is that many of these “extensions” make sense, but an unconditioned extension to any fertilized cell that happens to arise in a lab setting does not.

Human embryos don’t happen to arise…we choose to make them. And we choose not to implant them. Our choice is significant, and how we accomplish a given end is just as important as the end we seek. In other words, the ends don’t justify the means.

There are several reasons, e.g.: these cells lack any mental property, they lack ability by themselves to develop into a human in the environment where they are, and noone could possibly develop any serious emotional attachment to them.

So it’s the emotional attachment to them that imparts to them human rights? So I can kill a homeless vagabond who no one cares for? Hmm…

Or is it that we have chosen not to implant them, chosen to deprive them of nutrition and therefore they cannot continue to develop? What if I choose not to continue providing an infant nutrition so that it cannot possibly continue to develop? Hmm…

Or could it be that they’re not actively exercising a particular mental capacity? What about the comatose? Hmm…

In fact, I think this whole idea that there is a crystal clear difference between what is a human and not is doomed.

So much for biopsies!

There always be a gray zone where it’s difficult to tell, and where there will be no consensus.

There is a scientific consensus that if you find a living (i.e., not dead) individual organism with unique (and uniquely) human DNA, it’s a member of our species.

Your “gray zone” is an artificiality constructed by those who want to instrumentalize or marginalize certain humans.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Academic]

…cont’d…

Actually, there are (at least) four distinct penal theories. One is Deterrence (both general (societal) - and specific (individual)), which you cite. But there is also Rehabilitation, Retribution and Incapacitation. You may conflate the purposes, but the law does not.

Sure, I’m totally aware of that there are several different mechanisms through which punishment can reduce crime, but that remains the most important overall purpose. I don’t think we have to argue about everything, just because you dislike my views on eugenics.

If there’s a probability that the action could occur, you would “eliminate” the actor? Chilling. Truly chilling.

The actor doesn’t exist yet, so noone is eliminating anyone. We want to avoid having a lot of really nasty actors in the next generation. You don’t?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

The actor doesn’t exist yet, so noone is eliminating anyone. We want to avoid having a lot of really nasty actors in the next generation. You don’t?

I think that having a group who advocates killing or mutilating (sterilizing) a number of humans constitutes “a lot of really nasty actors.”

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Ani_Ibi]

And if you yourself seriously believe that plunging a knife into the head of a 9-month fetus is equivalent to washing away a in vitro fertilized egg cell you have a pretty twisted view of things.

Can you explain the difference please? Thank you.

 

[Academic]

That is completely irrelevant. That a person acts ethically doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not the intellectual basis for their ethics is sound.

You seem to say that the only sound intellectual basis for ethics is your set of metaphysical assumptions. That’s an extremely bold statement, with which practically no analytical philosopher working in this field would agree, and for which you haven’t presented any convincing argument.

Those (like Peter Singer) who divorce human rights from metaphysics (1) (arbitrarily) deny human rights to certain humans (making them somewhat less than universal)

The thing is that only a few minutes reflection reveals that your own human DNA criterion is very arbitrary and implausible as a necessary and sufficient condition for human rights. The question is more complicated than that.

And some are wrong. For those with the courage to follow through the logical implications of their position, free will is seen to be not compatible with materialism. It’s a logical certainty. If your actions are purely caused, you’re not free.

I think that is true, for free will in the strong sense, but you are still left with trying to explain what goes on when a genuine act of free will happens in this material world, governed by physical laws.

Do you want us to lie to ourselves or don’t you?

I agree with you that “real free will” is probably impossible in the physical world, and that we thus lack it. But there might be weaker forms of action which could qualify is “weak free will”, which have moral implications and which correspond to what we talk about as free choices in daily life. I admit that I don’t have so much to offer right now, and I would have to do a lot of reading and thinking before trying to develop this notion further, but the idea is at least not obviously incorrect as far as I can see.

Of course?!? And here I took you for a materialist who denied metaphysics! Backpedal, backpedal! Are we free or aren’t we?
If we’re free, we are accountable for our actions. If we are not free, we are no longer accountable.

You seem to take it for granted that we all understand what a free act is. I don’t, really. It seems kind of clear that freedom of choice is impossible in a physical system governed by third-person physical laws. But saying that hasn’t done anything to explain in positive terms what a free act is. And when you think if it turns our near impossible. That suggests to me that your/our normal idea of strong free will is too radical, and that something “weaker” which is compatible with physicalism might be posisble.

If when I say that two non-free things are equal I’m going too fast for you, please let me know.

Go as fast as you like, but then please keep an eye on the road. Your conclusions on the equal value of flatfish and humans don’t follow from your premise: the absence of free will.

Nor is a human more worthful than a rock. If all we are is a collection of atoms, motion and rest, nothing more, why on earth would you value one bag-of-atoms over another?

What your refer to as a “bag of atoms” is a true marvel of sophistication, your own brain. I already pointed that out.

Why is life significant?

I have no clear idea about free will, but I have a very clear feeling that my life and the lives of the people I love and care about are significant .

From a purely materialist perspective, I’m not even sure the word life has any real significance…is one atom alive and another dead?

Atoms can’t be alive or dead, or perhaps one should say they are all dead, but very complex systems of atoms can be divided into two broad categories, living and not living.

Then how does aggregating atoms impart some new property which wasn’t there before? How can you get more out of less? Logically, it doesn’t seem that you can. If you could, a perpetual motion machine wouldn’t seem so implausible.

This is just more nonsense.

Why? Why is something more valuable because it’s complex? There is great complexity in a flatworm…it can regenerate, we can’t…photosynthesis is also very complex…why don’t you place more value on organisms which can perform this complex task than on some synapses firing?

If you think you successfully avoid these complex questions by saying “because humans have a soul” you only fool yourselves and a few likeminded.

 

[ribozyme]

I think that having a group who advocates killing or mutilating (sterilizing) a number of humans constitutes “a lot of really nasty actors.”

God Bless,
RyanL

Embryo selection (or genetic engineering) is my preferred method for eugenic intervention. I think coercive embryo selection is better than voluntary or “free-market” embryo selection. I do not think eugenic policies of sterilization, immigration control, incentives to the rich benefit a civilization significantly and they favor those who already are economically privileged. Coercive embryo selection does not discriminate for or against anyone; no parents will be exempt from it because of their socioeconomic status. Furthermore, this would address the issue of the formation of a caste society. (see post 81)

Surely, this may be an inconvenience to some parents, but evading the formation of a caste society is a price that is worth defraying. Inequality makes me ill and we should strive for equality of outcome. Equality of outcome is impossible with the unequal distribution of cognitive ability. Eliminating these differences will make it easier for one to pursue the magnanimous goal of equality of outcome.

 

[Academic]

So being human doesn’t give you human rights? Hmm…

This is so exasperating. I’ve really invested energy in trying to give an account of how I think our feeling or moral rights originate in our respect for other normally functioning humans, and then extend from there to humans which lack full mentality, until we reach a difficult-do-define gray zone where it makes no sense to talk about full humanity any more. These gray zones are unavoidable because we are not metaphysical spirits, with an all or none “soul”, we are made of matter.

And all I get back is repetitions worthy of a senile parrot!!! If you think my account is wrong or implausible then couldn’t you please give me an idea of in what way? I think I’ve tried to be precise when it comes to explaining where I think you are wrong.

 

[Academic]

Can you explain the difference please? Thank you.

I come to think of Armstrong’s response to “what is jazz?” . Seriously, I’ve been doing little else in this thread the last days.

 

[ribozyme]

Do you really believe I have these opinions or do you create your evil straw man to make me appear crazy to the casual reader? The scenario you describe is of course more or less equivalent to infanticide, but it has no relevance to the issues I’ve tried to discuss. And if you yourself seriously believe that plunging a knife into the head of a 9-month fetus is equivalent to washing away a in vitro fertilized egg cell you have a pretty twisted view of things.

I agree with Peter Singer; there is no significant ontological difference between a fetus and an infant.

Academic, what is your criterion for personhood? Cell differentiation? If you use this, it would render abortion immoral, but it does salvage eugenic embryo selection. However, if we discriminate against an embryo based on their genotype and say they did not “merit” the right to life, one can apply this genotypic discrimation against mature adults. I do not see a fundamental difference, but if we embrace eugenics, I do not see how we can unconditionally love someone despite their genotype.

 

[RyanL]

You seem to say that the only sound intellectual basis for ethics is your set of metaphysical assumptions.

No, only that some set of metaphysics is required. Deny metaphysics and you’re in materialist reductionism. Once you go there, there’s no going back.

That’s an extremely bold statement, with which practically no analytical philosopher working in this field would agree…

You evidently haven’t read much on the subject…

, and for which you haven’t presented any convincing argument.

Again, my point is not to set out a systematic defense of free will or metaphysics. It’s simply to show you that pure materialist reductionism is dumb.

The thing is that only a few minutes reflection reveals that your own human DNA criterion is very arbitrary and implausible as a necessary and sufficient condition for human rights.

Being able to *scientifically *identify a particular individual living organism as human is the basis for my saying who is and is not human.

To me that seems neither arbitrary nor implausible.

Basing the question on some chronological snobbery of whether or not a particular human once reasoned at some ill-defined level, to me, seems both arbitrary and implausible.

The irony is truly striking.

The question is more complicated than that.

Not really. The question is simply whether or not it’s ever okay to intentionally kill an innocent human being. My answer is no.

You seem to take it for granted that we all understand what a free act is. I don’t, really.

I don’t believe you. I think you aren’t as ignorant as you claim. Were you free to have eggs for breakfast? Could you have chosen to have cereal? The answer, to me, seems fairly clear.

It seems kind of clear that freedom of choice is impossible in a physical system governed by third-person physical laws.

Yup, this is exactly right. This is precisely why free will for the materialist is impossible. Logical leaps, indeed.

Not so for one who believes in metaphysics, as we believe that our “physical system” (whatever that is) is not solely governed by third-person physical laws.

…That suggests to me that your/our normal idea of strong free will is too radical, and that something “weaker” which is compatible with physicalism might be posisble.

Either an act is free or it’s not. Either you could have had eggs for breakfast or you could not. Couching it in words like strong or weak is playing a shell game.

Your conclusions on the equal value of flatfish and humans don’t follow from your premise: the absence of free will.

Your conclusion that one automaton is better than another automaton doesn’t follow from your premise. A puppet is no more value than a rock, even if the strings pulling the puppet are very “complex.”

What your refer to as a “bag of atoms” is a true marvel of sophistication, your own brain. I already pointed that out.

Yup, but you didn’t point out why that matters. See the puppet example, supra.

I have no clear idea about free will, but I have a very clear** feeling** that my life and the lives of the people I love and care about are significant .

Ahh…so that’s the basis. Your feelings. How comfortingly sound a basis for human rights…

Atoms can’t be alive or dead, or perhaps one should say they are all dead, but very complex systems of atoms can be divided into two broad categories, living and not living.

This is just more nonsense.

How can a bunch of non-living things aggregate and suddenly “be alive” without metaphysics? How can the whole be greater than the sum of its parts? Such a question is hardly “nonsense”, no matter how you might like to dismiss it.

If you think you successfully avoid these complex questions by saying “because humans have a soul” you only fool yourselves and a few likeminded.

You’re right. Your basis in feelings is much more likely to be persuasive.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Why do you fear relinquishing your compassion? Only you have the ability to hold on to it or to throw it away.

The revival of eugenics became almost a given when trends of the 20th century such as birth control, abortion, euthanasia, IVF, and sex as recreation, began to treat human beings as products rather than persons.

Eugenics is rearing its ugly head again with the rise of abortion. Disabled fetuses are being recommended for abortion and not given a chance at life.

As to the OP’s question, I am generally skeptical. The Church has always protected the life of the innocent… since the first century of the Catholic Church She had been against infanticide and against other crimes against humanity.

 

[Academic]

No, only that some set of metaphysics is required.

Which set of statements? I believe this is simply false.

Being able to *scientifically *identify a particular individual living organism as human is the basis for my saying who is and is not human.

You use the term “human” in an equivocal way. The whole point of my argument is that human1 (having human DNA) does not have the same extension as human2 (having human rights). You can’t counter that argument by just asserting that human1=human2.

Basing the question on some chronological snobbery of whether or not a particular human once reasoned at some ill-defined level, to me, seems both arbitrary and implausible.

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “chronological snobbery” but I feel pretty confident that my account of how we think about human rights is roughly correct. I don’t know how you imagine that the idea that organisms with Homo sapiens DNA should have a special set of rights ever arose in anybody’s head.

Not really. The question is simply whether or not it’s ever okay to intentionally kill an innocent human being. My answer is no.

It’s ok to kill single cells with human DNA. We do it everytime we scratch our nose and it’s morally the same if we do it to a fertilized egg cell too. Killing a single human cell is not to kill a human, and your use of the term “human being” for both these entities is deliberate obfuscation.

I don’t believe you. I think you aren’t as ignorant as you claim. Were you free to have eggs for breakfast? Could you have chosen to have cereal? The answer, to me, seems fairly clear.

The task for you is to give an account of what was going on in my brain when it made this supposedly free choice. What kind of process was that and what’s the fundamental difference between that process and an act that is not free?

Not so for one who believes in metaphysics, as we believe that our “physical system” (whatever that is) is not solely governed by third-person physical laws.

So free will is something over and above the physical laws that govern the brain’s operation? Wow!

Either an act is free or it’s not. Either you could have had eggs for breakfast or you could not. Couching it in words like strong or weak is playing a shell game.

I admit that I ought to be able to give a better account of what I mean by “weak free will”, but on the other hand these are difficult questions. I think it may have to do with different levels of description: at a lower physical level, all is governed by first principles, but at a higher level - the level of cognitive representations of concepts - some form of limited freedom might be possible. I’m diffuse, I concede; I’m just trying to indicate in what direction I’m thinking.

Your conclusion that one automaton is better than another automaton doesn’t follow from your premise. A puppet is no more value than a rock, even if the strings pulling the puppet are very “complex.”

Well, why is the puppet more valuable if some of its acts have free will then? I think complexity is essential, but not just any complexity. Again, raising these questions is a lot easier than answering them in a complete way.

Ahh…so that’s the basis. Your feelings. How comfortingly sound a basis for human rights…

Ethics uses reason, but it is not maths. In ethics its vital to examine whether your conclusions feel reasonable, and if you end up with bizarre conclusions, the natural response is to go back and try to localize where things went wrong on the way. In any case, an ethical system which is completely at odds with normal human psychology will never be implemented. Case in point: One gentleman here just asked why there is a moral difference between stabbing babies in the head and flushing away egg cells. If my moral theory really couldn’t provide an answer to that question, I would strongly suspect that something is seriously wrong with the theory.

How can a bunch of non-living things aggregate and suddenly “be alive” without metaphysics?

Buy a biology textbook.

 

[Academic]

I agree with Peter Singer; there is no significant ontological difference between a fetus and an infant.

Academic, what is your criterion for personhood?

I’ve said it many times. It basically has to do with having a minimal consciousness, but we for independent reasons include late stage embryos, brain damaged adults etc as well. My definition is pretty flexible at the borders, and may change in the light of new data, which is as it should be, since this is not a simple question with a binary answer.

However, if we discriminate against an embryo based on their genotype and say they did not “merit” the right to life, one can apply this genotypic discrimation against mature adults.

There is a huge difference since adults without any doubt are persons with full human rights, while in vitro embryos lack the same rights.

I do not see how we can unconditionally love someone despite their genotype.

No problem: We already treat genetic diseases in different ways (i.e. we admit it’s a disease and that it’s undesirable), while respecting the victims of the disease completely, and we already in some cases in fact practice eugenics by advicing against spreading these genes further (e.g. Huntington’s disease). We can love a person with a disease without wishing to spread the disease.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

There is a huge difference since adults without any doubt are persons with full human rights, while in vitro embryos lack the same rights.

Are you saying that when you were in your mother’s womb you were not human, even though you developed into being an independent person now?

We cannot say that a fetus is not conscious. There are many studies that have been done with the effects of certain types of music which directly had an effect on fetuses. While a fetus may be inside its mother for 9 months, just because it depends on its mother for nourishment and life for those 9 months does not mean that its consciousness does not act independently of hers. In fact, in some ancient cultures infanticide was practiced because they believed the baby to not be human because it was still reliable on its mother for life. Who are we to say when something is alive or not?

The argument that a fetus is not human, but sub-human and therefore does not have a right to life is tantamount to the Nazis arguing that the Jews were not humans, but sub-humans, and therefore they had no right to life. Eugenecist policies will continue to invade the liberal academic community as long as these opinions are considered scientific fact.

 

[JimG]

It seems to me that if human beings possess inalienable human rights, then those rights must attach to all human beings. I agree with Aquinas that since personhood is a quality of human beings, all human beings are persons.

A human being is a distinct individual of the human species.

So the only question is: when does a new individual of the human species have its beginning? This seems pretty simple.

 

[Larry1700]

We have to draw the line somewhere, after the best of our ability. You choose to draw it around having human DNA or not. I think that is both absurdly inclusive (in vitro embryos) and too exclusive (humans with deviant chromosomal sets e.g.).

That’s the problem. The ability of humans is always changing. It’s also often difficult to obtain agreement between the abilities of those from different disciplines. That’s why it is vital for the good of all that the decision about what defines a human should not be left to the changing opinions and abilities of man.

It sure as hell doesn’t, and your repeating that a 100 times won’t change that fact.

It sure as heck does, and your repeating that a 100 times won’t change that fact. Human DNA (no, not a single DNA molecule, but a fertilized egg with human DNA) means an organism is human.

Ok so now an isolated, complete human DNA molecule is also a person with full rights and an eternal soul?

No, not a single DNA molecule, but a fertilized egg with human DNA is human.

It’s not protected because it is an eagle, silly, but because if people make omelettes of these eggs the species will be extinct. Oh my…

It’s protected because a bald-eagle egg is the first stage of development of a fully-grown bald eagle.

And BTW, you called me silly here, and morally conceited previously. There’s no need for name-calling, nor does it add to the debate. I could throw a few out myself, but I don’t, because you’re entitled to human dignity. You are human, aren’t you? Perhaps we should take a vote, or try to make that determination to the best of our ability.

Also, you mentioned in a previous post that most educated people agree with you. I can say the same thing. Perhaps we run in different circles?

Finally, exactly what did you expect to encounter when entering a site called catholic.com? You seem amazed that you found people who believe that human dignity is granted by God, not by a decision of one or more people. You seem surprised that you found people who believe that human dignity / human rights belong to all human life, from conception to natural death.

 

[Writer]

Not sure where to put this, but since it deals the eugenics, seems like a good place.

I just stumbled across a book call Preaching Eugenics. I haven’t read the book, but it appears to indicate that the Catholic church once “enthusiastically embraced” eugenics.

Anybody know anything about the supposed truth of this statement? Perhaps some off-kilter priest or bishop spoke of it, but certainly it was never an official teaching.

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church consistently opposed eugenics, but other Christian traditions did embrace it. G.K Chesterton’s ***The Everlasting Man ***touches on the eugenics debate, I believe.