Gedopi a Non Eugenic Doctor

Post Reply New Topic

OP do you realise that people on the spectrum (presumably you are such) will be right at the top of the line for "treatment" if those in power thought as you appear to do? You have previously declared yourself a libertarian, though I think you are an extremist that even most libertarians would run a mile from. Autistic people have been the target of exterminator eugenicists (last century) and that kind of ugliness should never be forgotten.

If you are going to write satires for the eugenics, at least try to make them clever and witty, like Jonathan Swift's famous satire, not simplistic propagandist spin. It's offensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

It is an important skill to be able to discuss theory of ethics without conflation with personal morality. Personal morality is something naturally linked to emotions like empathy, which are important biological motors. Theoretical ethics is about practically looking at general or specific policy and harms to society and weighing them up. Also this is complicated due to present and future harm and lacking hindsight (e.g. life changing technology that may come as a result of conflicts that may save more lives). Sometime people get very angry when a theoretical discussion of ethic is made, becuase it is not in line with their moral compass however they are no always comprehending what is being discussed and are not used to ethical debate.

Considering this satirical post (which could equally be made without knowing that the doctor is a against eugenics), I don't think it all that good an analogy.

Eugenics itself is not a particularly Libertarian position. For one it is associated most with state control, and fascist ideology. Libertarians are naturally against social engineering.

Eugenics was extremely popular early 20th century, and very much in the mold of socialist ideas. It was considered a compassionate social policy to end suffering and poverty.

Henry Godard is famous for a flawed study on a family exhibiting fetal alcohol syndrome, which he wrongly assumed was a genetic propensity to low intelligence and delinquency. He latter recanted. He was only trying to do the right thing.

Randian Objectivism (don't be fooled by the name), isn't all that typical of Libertarianism, nor is its theory of ethics particularly sound.

Libertariansm, generally follows classical liberal values such as the harm principle.

On a basic level we can understand a scenario where a high-jacked plane is due to crash into a city, and there the opportunity to shoot it down. However even a scenario like that isn't as simple as it first appears. There is rarely a perfect moment to make a perfect morally "correct" judgment. If a pane had got any where near a city it is likely to cause mass loss of life if it were to fall out of the sky. You could do some advanced statistical modeling, but that is very complex. Most questions of scale are even more complex than this.

Eugenics is mostly based on flawed theory.

There are often no clear answers. Ttrisomy-21 (Downs Syndrome) isn't usually debilitating, and arguably they can have a good quality of life, albeit slightly shorter (but not much more than if they were diabetic). Screening is extremely common these days. It is certainly a challenge for parent and some cases are more so than others. If we can say that it is ok that someone isn't in a position to have children and therefore wishes to abort, then should they not be able to choose whether they could cope with a Downs child? Personally I see the POV from the other side too. Screening isn't 100% either but it is getting better. Some say the Downs community is under threat.

Something like spina bifida only causes suffering. There is good argument in favour of eliminating this debilitating condition.