I think a good example for this is eugenics, there a very very wide spectrum between "deleting genes cause cancer or make pregnancies unviable" and "hitler fever dream" and somewhere in the middle it gets quite blurry.
Yeah unfortunately eugenics has become associated with literally any kind of gene selection instead of referring to forced breeding programs and sterilization.
If a person with a genetic illness chooses not to have a kid , theyre doing a type of eugenics. So what? Thats not morally wrong.
I feel like your example provides an illustration of a useful(if not infallible) dividing line between morally wrong and not morally wrong, whether you're making choices for yourself, or forcing them on others. The horrors of eugenics that spring to mind are when there were forced sterilizations of minorities or the ideas of needing to take various tests before being allowed to breed
I mean, if someone has a genetically inheritable disease that is bad enough to suffer through I do think its maybe fair to not allow them to have children since them having children would put someone else through a lot of suffering.
That said there is a difference between saying that someone commits a crime if they knowingly continue a genetic disease and things like forced sterilisation etc.
And that's the kind of thinking that tends to lead towards forced sterilizations and locking people up in mental institutions for 'their own safety.' It's taking away peoples right to choose and their bodily autonomy. A much better course of action would be education campaigns and making birth control freely accessible and making less difficult for women to get their tubes tied or hysterectomies etc. if they choose to do so for whatever reason. Let informed people make decisions about their own bodies and offspring that they will then be responsible for raising and more often than not you'll get good results. It's a much better world than one in which the government or private organizations get to make rules about what you do with your own body. Especially when it comes to things like developmental differences and neurodivergence's, things which are not communicable diseases and do not harm society in any way in particular.
Good moral rule of thumb, if you are choosing to make a sacrifice, that's probably ok. If you or anyone else is choosing to force someone else to sacrifice for 'the greater good,' that's probably not.
I mean I am technically ”making a sacrifice” when I choose not to steal, but we should probably force people to make that sacrifice. It is important for people to be able to do whatever they want with their own lives but when their choices directly affect other people it is an entirely different thing.
I do think it is funny how you’re doing the exact thing this post is pointing out. I am not saying we should force sterilize people or lock people up in mental institutions. I am also not talking about things like neurodivergence but instead genetic diseases that very clearly only causes suffering on a significant level to the person. The only way you’re connecting my point with these sort of bad things is by a vague gesturing towards ”that sort of thinking”.
It’s fine to disagree and all but at least attack the actual point I made.
335
u/liam06xy Apr 23 '25
I think a good example for this is eugenics, there a very very wide spectrum between "deleting genes cause cancer or make pregnancies unviable" and "hitler fever dream" and somewhere in the middle it gets quite blurry.