Is eugenics the logical result of Darwinism?

Very good points PaulK. Thanks for the clarity.As far as point 2:It does appear that "logically" Darwinism can suggest eugenics. However, what we have learned in the last century is that the darwinian processes are so complex that we are unlikely in practice to achieve any eugenic ends. That is we know that eugenics is almost certainly not going to be successful. Based on that we logically arrive at not useing it.It comes down to our not knowing enough and, perhaps, never knowing enough to be able to use eugenics to accomplish any significant goals. That is, as you note, assuming that we have already, separately, accepted your points 1 and 3.

There certainly are other ethics. One would stem from a recognition of the environment in which we evoled to our current state. It was that of small tribal groups and we, therefore, run the risk of having a genetic predisposition for bonding with small groups and therefore suffering a tendancy towards xenophobia.An ethical regime that recognized this problem would encourage us to understand and work to build rules to allow a wider acceptance of a larger tribe.

The main point that has been made over and over is that there are no ethical systems that make sense to derive from evolutionary theory.The eugenics one is, in fact, counter to evolution when it is understood. We do NOT understand what to select on so it would be very stupid to start doing wholesale selection based on what would, in the long term, be potentially dangerous criteria. We DO know that diversity in the gene pool is a very good safty factor for a species so selection can be dangerous if it starts to reduce diversity.The eugenics movement was, of course, attempting to draw on evolutionary principles. It was using a very poor understanding of the whole science however. It is just the kind of poor understanding that literalist fundies are promoting for all they are worth today. It may well be a leap. I'm not an expert. But for sure as heck you don't know if there is evidence or not. In this case it doesn't happen to matter if there is or not.What there is evidence for is that we developed compassion long before there were any of the modern monotheistic religions about and there is some hint that we may have developed it before we actually reached a point of being human. I suggest that we need to consider the idea that we do have inclinations that are not compassionate or what we might like to see us have from an ethical point of view. The inclination to kill and eat creatures for meat is considered by some to be very unethical. I don't think we need to argue that most of us are born with such an inclination. If we, as a society, decide that this is indeed unethical then we will have to learn to engineer away from it.The fact that we are not a separate creation from those others may, in deed, allow us to reach such a new ethical viewpoint. Not something that the fundies have much basis for however.(btw, in case it makes any difference, I am not a vegetarian, but I can understand how some may arrive at that ethical viewpoint)

They used Darwinism as an arguement. They were not based on Darwinism. They were based on an idea of superiority to other people and used Darwinism to dress up bigotry as an excuse for unethical behaviors.On the same basis other groups have used Christianity to dress up their own ideas and bigotry.Both the teachings of religions, what we know about the world from sciences (especially psychology and sociology) can be used as part of the input in arriving at ethical decisions and systems. They are NOT the basis for them nor the final answer.They may be used well and a good job done of reaching such ethical decisions and systems or they may be used with malice.

It is clear from the loudest of the Christian groups on the USA that you can not base compassionate ethical systems on their teaching either.They claim that we must discriminate against those who are homosexual because the Bible says so. This is not compassionate in any way I understand the word.However, one justification that I have heard from them is that it is "unnatural" and doesn't lead to children. That we must procreate. This suggests that they are supporting a Darwinian view to shore up their bigotry.(as an aside it is entirely possible that any injunctions that may be in any texts against homosexuality stem from a feeling that it was important to produce children, which in ancient times was true)This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-30-2005 05:46 PM

What ever it is supposed to lead to it was used to support slavery. The racist tendancies were around long before Darwinism and the Bible was a perfectly fine support for them. When anything new came along the bigots jumped on it to support their views.The Bible, according to some, says we are separated from the others who share this earth. Evolution says we all descend from one set of parents. There are those who believe the separation of us from the others is evil. Their ethical system is more inclusive than yours might be. That might be one measure to say it is "better" in some way.