Matt Ridley
Matt Ridley – The New Eugenics
Initial Questions: What is a disease and where is the line. Ex, Huntington’s and dyslexia
Main Point: genetic engineering will not damage our moral principle of giving respect to all persons
He is arguing that eugenics is not such as bad thing, and even if it is that will not stop people from trying to improve themselves. “After all, in pursuit of the perfect human being, we have willingly tried every weapon that falls into our hands, from prayer to psychoanalysis to breast implants. Will we-and should we – do the same with genes?”(147)
He then discusses the ‘sad legacy’ of eugenics and explains why we have a negative feeling about the word. He cites examples of Churchill wanting to sterilize the mentally handicapped and the Buck vs. Bell U.S. Supreme Court case which legalized sterilization of low IQ and mentally handicapped. (Buck was only 6 months old, justified over 100,000 forced sterilizations) Famous quote from case: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough!” – Oliver Wendell Holmes.
After discussing these moral atrocities he notes that what makes them atrocities is that they were performed with out the person’s consent. A violation of their autonomy, which we consider immoral. This is important for the current eugenics debate because people who would get the procedures would presumably be volunteering. [M]odern eugenics is about individuals applying private criteria to improve their own offspring by screening their genes.”(147)
Examples of benefits, pg. 148
The fear of the abuse: These types of unnecarry improvements send the message that there is something wrong with the person that has them. Shortness could become a disease. “In a genetically engineered society, the parents of a genetically disable child would feel social opprobrium for not having “done something about it.”(148)
He counters this fear by saying that as a society we still have respect for people who have preventable diseases like Down Syndrome or other prenatal inflictions. Our moral good of the respect for human life is not altered by these individuals and it will continue to be present even if there are less people who possess these ‘undesirable’ conditions.
He then addresses the argument that genetic enhancements will eliminate diversity, he thinks that it will do the opposite. “Far from threatening diversity, genetic engineering may actually increase it. Supposing cosmetic genetic engineering became accepted, musical people might seek out musical genes for their children; athletes might seek athletic genes; etc. It is very unlikely that everybody would choose the same priority.”(148-149)
He argues that if this becomes commonplace and is legalized that it will not become widespread because the only people that will use it are those who are forced to. His reasoning for this is because: “People do not want particular types of children; they just want their own children, and they want them to be a bit like themselves…”(149)
He then concludes with a quote from Jefferson which attempts to place faith in the abilities of humans to make the moral choice and our trust that they will do so. Pg. 149
Initial Questions: What is a disease and where is the line. Ex, Huntington’s and dyslexia
Main Point: genetic engineering will not damage our moral principle of giving respect to all persons
He is arguing that eugenics is not such as bad thing, and even if it is that will not stop people from trying to improve themselves. “After all, in pursuit of the perfect human being, we have willingly tried every weapon that falls into our hands, from prayer to psychoanalysis to breast implants. Will we-and should we – do the same with genes?”(147)
He then discusses the ‘sad legacy’ of eugenics and explains why we have a negative feeling about the word. He cites examples of Churchill wanting to sterilize the mentally handicapped and the Buck vs. Bell U.S. Supreme Court case which legalized sterilization of low IQ and mentally handicapped. (Buck was only 6 months old, justified over 100,000 forced sterilizations) Famous quote from case: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough!” – Oliver Wendell Holmes.
After discussing these moral atrocities he notes that what makes them atrocities is that they were performed with out the person’s consent. A violation of their autonomy, which we consider immoral. This is important for the current eugenics debate because people who would get the procedures would presumably be volunteering. [M]odern eugenics is about individuals applying private criteria to improve their own offspring by screening their genes.”(147)
Examples of benefits, pg. 148
The fear of the abuse: These types of unnecarry improvements send the message that there is something wrong with the person that has them. Shortness could become a disease. “In a genetically engineered society, the parents of a genetically disable child would feel social opprobrium for not having “done something about it.”(148)
He counters this fear by saying that as a society we still have respect for people who have preventable diseases like Down Syndrome or other prenatal inflictions. Our moral good of the respect for human life is not altered by these individuals and it will continue to be present even if there are less people who possess these ‘undesirable’ conditions.
He then addresses the argument that genetic enhancements will eliminate diversity, he thinks that it will do the opposite. “Far from threatening diversity, genetic engineering may actually increase it. Supposing cosmetic genetic engineering became accepted, musical people might seek out musical genes for their children; athletes might seek athletic genes; etc. It is very unlikely that everybody would choose the same priority.”(148-149)
He argues that if this becomes commonplace and is legalized that it will not become widespread because the only people that will use it are those who are forced to. His reasoning for this is because: “People do not want particular types of children; they just want their own children, and they want them to be a bit like themselves…”(149)
He then concludes with a quote from Jefferson which attempts to place faith in the abilities of humans to make the moral choice and our trust that they will do so. Pg. 149
posted by Charles Carlson at
10:39 AM
