Is eugenics the logical result of Darwinism?

Eugenics essentially applies the idea of selective breeding to improve the stock to humans. The use of selective breeding preceded the idea of evolution and I see no reason why the application to humans requires any more than recognising that humans also inherit traits from their parents.Adding racist ideas to the mix - as was the case in Nazi Germany (and again these preceded evolution) is likely to encourage the idea. "Racial purity" in itself represents a form of selective breeding. It certainly seems to be a small extension to try to prevent embarrassing examples of "inferiority" to breed - even if such inferrority is not seen as evidence of "impure" ancestry.It could be argued that Mendelian genetics played a role. Under the idea of "blending" inheritance - accepted by Darwin - it could be argued that uncommon traits would simply be swamped by breeding unless they were reinforced by selection. Mendelian genetics supported a particulate theory of inheritance that wrecked that idea. On this line of thought Mendel is more to "blame" than Darwin.

1) I once saw a racist briefly interviewed on TV
His argument (paraphrased) was that a pedigree dog was more valuable than a mongrel.
Clearly he was thinking in terms of selective breeding and human values, not evolution - it would be not unusual for a mongrel to be more fit than a pedigree dog.2) Recently in this group, Jerry Don Bauer promoting his own brand of ID argued that humans were heading for a "mutational meltdown". If this were established as true (which is not proved) eugenics could be seen as a rational response (indeed in the absence of any alternative I would grudgingly accept the need for some measures in this line).

Darwinism is descriptive. It is about what happens.Eugenics is prescriptive, it states that we should perform certain actions to achieve an end considered desirable.To justify a prescriptive program the following points are important:1) The end must be genuinely desirable
2) We must reasonably expect the means to accomplish the end
3) The means must be acceptable - a price worth paying to achieve the end.A descriptive theory can only aid us on the second point. Thus anyone who argues that Darwinism implies eugenics has implicitly accepted the first and third. Yet surely the greatest contention is the third - that even if eugenics would work as planned, the means were too high a price.

As implied by by earlier post there is no "evolutionary logic" as such that provides a compelling reason to resort to eugenics. Evolution does not tell us what we should do.There are some arguments which might seem more appealing because of their reference to evolution. One I have seen used is that if natural selection created us, then we should not go against it by permitting individuals to be selected out to breed.However while this argument can be seen as superficially convincing it can be easily countered. If it is accepted that our nature is the product of evolution then going against that by refusing to show compassion would be to go against evolution in another way.Even worse for the argument is that we are not some special product that should be used as the sole basis for judging natural selection. Natural selection does not share human values and following it is far from guaranteed to produce a result we would find desirable.No, at most evolution can help us make an informed choice. There is no sensible reason to simply try and mimic what would happen if we did not have modern medicine on the assumption that it is somehow "right".

I picked compassion because that was the supposed conflict identified in the material quoted in the first post Message 1. That in itself assumed that we were moved to help by compassion.

Well Nazi race idea come from Gobineau who published before Darwin.Eugenics had its own popularity - and I would suggest that it appealed to Nazis because of the link to their ideas of racial superiority.As for the persecution of Jews and homosexuals, that has even less to do with evolution than it has to do with Christianity.

It sounds like natural selection - but there's no hint of evolution as such. It talks of keeping a species strong - not producing new species. I'm pretty sure that it is consistent with pre-Darwianin ideas of natural selection.See:
Darwin's precursors and influences: 4. Natural selection
And the preceding section has a little more.

Well obviously your quote doesn't help you. It corresponds well with non-evolutionary ideas of natural selection, not pre-Darwinain theories of evolution.

Well perhaps you can investigate Blyth's version of natural selection and explain how the version in Mein Kampf is evolutionary where Blyth's is not.

I think you need to read and address the points I raised on the first page. Message 5 and Message 12 are the most important. But the points in Message 3 and the examples in Message 4 are also relevant.This message has been edited by PaulK, 05-30-2005 03:13 PM

Deriving ethics from evolution makes as mucb sense as deriving ethics from gravity. Both are descriptive theories - like all scientific theories, and they have no ethical content. If you disagree then you need to explain why instead of ignoring the point.As for your assumption that a "mutational meltdown" is going to get everyone, that's just an assumption. And if one was on the way eugenics could slow it down even if you were right.

The idea is that detrimental mutations accumulate to the point where the species goes extinct.

Well I don't see anything in any message that justifies moving from the descriptive to the prescriptive. If there's one I've missed please direct me to it.But you are wrong to say that no other principles can be derived from evolutionary priciples. As I pointed out you can justify showing compassion. Or you could say that eugenics interferes with the natural process of evolution and reject eugenics on that ground.

It was in Message 12 - one of the two I pointed out as being most important.And am I to take from your silence that there is no valid argument to justify "extermination of the unfit" from evolutionary principles ? Because if there is not then there is no basis to any claim that eugenics of that sort is the "logical result of Darwinism"

No, it certainly is not a non-sequitur. If you can't get from the theory to justification of a course of action you cannot say that the course of action is the logical consequence of the theory.

quote:

---

That is, if eugenics can't be justified ethically at all, then one can't say it is the logical result of Darwinism??

---

As I pointed out right back on page 1, even IF the theory lead us to believe that eugenics would have desirable results that would not be enough in itself to say that we should institute eugenic measures. And it is the actual imposition of eugenics that you are objecting to, is it not ? Not the idea that there might be some benefits in doing so.As to my point about compassion it certainly is a part of human nature - while killing people said to have "inferior genes" doesn't seem to be.

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, at most evolution can help us make an informed choice.There is no sensible reason to simply try and mimic what would happen if we did not have modern medicine on the assumption that it is somehow "right".

---

Nobody I know has proposed this, have they?

---

Well where is the connection ot evolution ? As has been disucssed earlier in the thread selective breeding preceded Darwinism. Indeed even natural selection preceded Darwinism. Darwin's contribution was to link natural selection to the mechanism of directign evolutionary change. But it seems that you are evwn dropping the connection to natural selection and going back to the artificial selection that was well established before evolution came on the scene