Analyzing U S Eugenics Movement and Nazi Eugenics

Eugenics Reflection on Past and Current Activities

The negative feelings and perceptions many have about eugenics have been founded on previous evidence where the practice was found to have been used to limit the growth of some races. The racial prejudices are shocking in their ferocity. The initial step towards evil is the ridicule or vilification of the victim. Many individuals have been objectified and described as waste or animals, making it thinkable or possible for the public to accept the discrimination or denial of rights to certain races, first through segregation and institutionalization and then through involuntary sterilization or even downright genocide as the case was in Nazi Germany. Even though the racism, bigotry, discrimination and pseudoscience, which was associated with eugenics is rightly deserved, these ills do not in themselves show reason why eugenics ought to be avoided in the future. Much negativity has been attributed to the eugenics movement because at the time when it was founded, it was put to negative use (Chapter Two: eugenics and its shadow, n.d).

At the time, different forms of bias such as class snobbery and racism were openly practiced even by intellectuals, in contrast to the modern polite society where the open display of such biases is shunned. However, this is not to say that such biases are limited to genetics. One of the main concerns of public health authorities back then is that whites could catch the diseases afflicting black people. A reflexive rejection of eugenic practices, owing to the fact that they had such evil proponents is neither ethical nor intellectually serious. The main issue is the moral aspect of eugenic ideas, which ought to be found out, described and evaluated (Chapter Two: eugenics and its shadow, n.d).

It has been argued that eugenics sought to better humanity -- through making sure that the individuals who are given birth to are better compared to their normally born counterparts. Benefits to individuals already existing would not be direct. For instance, individuals already born could benefit from the productivity of the better humans born through the practice and the freedom of not having a society full of unfit individuals (Chapter Two: eugenics and its shadow, n.d).

However, there are also quite a number of reasons that question the morality and other aspects of eugenics. Practices or policies that seek to control the well-being of future populations by altering the identities of persons to be born in the future presents quite a number of philosophical concerns. Still, those who support the eugenics movement have argued that commercial advertising, conservation policies and macroeconomic decisions also have the same effect of altering future populations. However, how sure can we be that those responsible for controlling eugenics will not favour "undesirable" traits? In such a world where certain traits are favoured over others, there would be lack of diversity or appreciation for different opinions or decisions (Chapter Two: eugenics and its shadow, n.d).

About seven decades ago, eugenicists were used for hateful practices of eliminating those races which they did not want in the future. Thus, Nazi eugenicists opted to eliminate many Jews and other races that they didn't think deserved to share the same space with Germans. Thus, eugenicists are blamed for popularizing the idea of human perfection -- that there exist perfect virtues in people from certain racial extractions, resulting in bias of those who were though not to have the perfect or beneficial traits (Chapter Two: eugenics and its shadow, n.d).

Mainstream eugenicists are thought to have been snobs favouring intellectual and self-control benefits since they thought these characteristics were critical to survival. Apart from Nazi Germany, the U.S. is also responsible for one of the worst atrocities ever attributed to the eugenics movement; the sterilization of thousands of Americans (Chapter Two: eugenics and its shadow, n.d; Allen, 2005).

Part 2

Similar to eugenics, testing for Down's syndrome was started by the idea that not all humans are equal. Whether eugenicists were consumed with fear over sin or crime or they were inspired by the potential for social progress that could have resulted from the higher proportions of gifted individuals born in the near future, all of the attached high importance to the idea that not all men were born equal. The idea that, individuals without self-control or mental attributes are of less value compared to those with more of these traits was highly popularized by eugenicists (Chapter Two: eugenics and its shadow, n.d).

The main difference between the Down syndrome as we know it now and the past eugenics is that, the Down syndrome eugenics is properly regulated by highly functioning public policies and social institutions and that the value of down syndrome eugenics cannot be underestimated. There's also the issue of self-respect (McCabe & McCabe, 2011).

Self --respect entails a person's perception of the value of his or her life and the belief that there is a purpose for their lives. If an individual doesn't believe that there is a plan or a purpose for his or her life, then he or she would not take pleasure in pursuing anything. Even though it's not clear to what degree are the differences in ability and performance linked to genetics, many have pointed that past eugenics movements addressed the issue poorly.

Thus, if any progress is to be made, studies have to be done to ascertain which abilities are controlled exclusively by genetics and whether altering the identity of the individual through interfering with their genetic makeup can make them a better person (McCabe & McCabe, 2011). Many disability rights activists have also raised the alarm that genetic screening programs and interventions which aim to remove disabilities from individuals who are not yet born, could stigmatize the persons with disability (Chapter Two: eugenics and its shadow, n.d).