Dolphins also have a very high intelligence, researchers wonder whether they are actually sentient. Whales even more so.
You would separate us from animals by removing empathy?
Firstly, whales are actually LESS intelligent than dolphins.
Secondly, I was pointing out that we cannot use empathy as what defines a person vs a "mere" animal, because things that are clearly not people (dogs, for instance) show empathy. And while it is true that it is only a trait found in -more- intelligent animals, it is found in things far, far below humans in intelligence.
Putting a living thing in the ground because I want to drive a Lamborghini is only ethical in a utilitarian sense. If that's what you advocate, then fine. Be aware that utilitarianism comes with it's own set of problems, like putting
Here's the thing - fewer people with a higher quality of life is a good thing. Our goal should not be to keep as many things alive as possible.
Caretakers can be family members who love them. Even mentally retarded people can show love back, this is a fact.
Dogs can love you too.
Not according to utilitarianism. You say that people who aren't useful, are a drag on society should be removed. This would include both mentally and physically disabled people.
Hawking. QED. Also, my argument hinges on intelligence; being useless is a consequence of lack of intelligence, but intelligence is the distinguishing feature, NOT usefulness.
Nice straw man you've got there. Either that or you really just couldn't read/understand what I wrote.
By what standard? Usefulness? Productivity? Reducing the cognitive capacity of something as complicated as a human to a bare number is bound to contain approximations and flaws. The brain is so complicated, we've only begun to understand how it works.
You don't have to understand something very well to measure it. We know how strong Earth's gravity is, yet we don't actually even know why gravity exists, or how it functions.
"Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5 to a high of 0.9. A 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about .45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence. A 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 for 18-year-olds and older. The New York Times Magazine has listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies."
I never said you advocated ovens, but you do advocate euthanasia, and that's what their idea was.
I advocate euthanasia of things that are not people. They advocated euthanasia of things which are people.
At the end of the day, eugenics is a tool that *could* be used to make life better for everyone. It comes at a price though - it's an affront to everyone's freedom to give the government the power to come into your home, and subject you to an involuntary medical procedure. It also supports ideas like racism, and leads to a culture where you're pedigree or genetic makeup determines what you're worth as a person.
Well, your worth is already in large part determined by those things anyway - if you're born poor and stupid, you are never going to amount to anything. If you're born rich and stupid, you can get by. If you're born poor and smart, you can be successful. And if you're born rich and smart, chances are you'll do very well. Its horrible, but its the case. The idea that all men are created equal is more of an ideal than a reality, though I feel it is a good ideal.
What is interesting about eugenics on the basis of elimination of very negative traits (mental retardation, cystic fibrosis, ect.) that are genetically based is that you advantage future generations and quality of life by preventing people who are going to produce more miserable children from producing said children. I think it is enormously unethical to produce a retarded child, or one with a severe disability. If someone gets injured, so be it, but if someone is going to be born with a handicap, better to abort and reroll the dice.
I'm not really for eugenics of, say, trying to make everyone into nordic supermen, but I would say that mass genetic engineering would be good for society, and would also say that people who have severe genetic handicaps should not reproduce.
This post has been edited by Titanium Dragon: 08 March 2012 - 04:22 AM