4 ms·

What's with the weird righteous indignation on behalf of "moral conservatives?" Has no conservative ever advanced a eugenic cause?

by gglitch 11y ago

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Promotion of eugenics has primarily been a liberal cause, historically. Supporters include progressives like Roosevelt and Hoover, opponents were conservatives like Chesterton and the Catholic church. "Building a better man" was a major tool of socialists, and it wasn't restricted to education. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Supporters_and_critics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Supporters_and_critic... In fact, the legacy of this exists today - note that the Communist party of China is the main practitioner of eugenics today (see Yao Ming). It's only in the modern era of identity politics, inequality as a real concern, and racial spoils systems that liberals have come to oppose it. If we acknowledge that intelligence is genetically determined, then we might be forced to recognize the tradeoff between individual fairness and statistically equal distribution of spoils. We might also be forced to acknowledge that inequality is a result of inborn meritorious traits (intelligence, conscientiousness) rather than some external unfairness.
Tuna-Fish 11y ago
While there were plenty of individual conservatives who advocated for it, pre-war it was mostly a progressive cause. It's hard to understand now, but society back then was quite different than today, and the political divisions of the time were also different. Francis Galton had done some early psychometry, and published his results claiming that the English upper class was the upper class because they were genetically superior to the lower classes. This result was widely accepted by both the progressives and the conservatives. The difference between the left and the right was not opposition to the principle of Social Darwinism, but just what should be done about it. The progressives advocated for eugenics to lift the lower classes from the 'genetic deficit' they were born into, while the traditional conservatives believed that this was unnecessary and that the situation as it existed was the natural order that shouldn't be fixed. Neither side would fit at all into modern common morality.
wtbob 11y ago
Historically, eugenics was a progressive issue. It makes sense, since conservatives tend to be much more cautious about upsetting the applecart that is civilisation, while progressives are much more eager to change and improve things.

What's with the weird righteous indignation on behalf of "moral conservatives?" Has no conservative ever advanced a eugenic cause?

by gglitch 11y ago

What's with the weird righteous indignation on behalf of "moral conservatives?" Has no conservative ever advanced a eugenic cause?

yummyfajitas 11y ago

Promotion of eugenics has primarily been a liberal cause, historically. Supporters include progressives like Roosevelt and Hoover, opponents were conservatives like Chesterton and the Catholic church. "Building a better man" was a major tool of socialists, and it wasn't restricted to education. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Supporters_and_critics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Supporters_and_critic... In fact, the legacy of this exists today - note that the Communist party of China is the main practitioner of eugenics today (see Yao Ming). It's only in the modern era of identity politics, inequality as a real concern, and racial spoils systems that liberals have come to oppose it. If we acknowledge that intelligence is genetically determined, then we might be forced to recognize the tradeoff between individual fairness and statistically equal distribution of spoils. We might also be forced to acknowledge that inequality is a result of inborn meritorious traits (intelligence, conscientiousness) rather than some external unfairness.

Tuna-Fish 11y ago

While there were plenty of individual conservatives who advocated for it, pre-war it was mostly a progressive cause. It's hard to understand now, but society back then was quite different than today, and the political divisions of the time were also different. Francis Galton had done some early psychometry, and published his results claiming that the English upper class was the upper class because they were genetically superior to the lower classes. This result was widely accepted by both the progressives and the conservatives. The difference between the left and the right was not opposition to the principle of Social Darwinism, but just what should be done about it. The progressives advocated for eugenics to lift the lower classes from the 'genetic deficit' they were born into, while the traditional conservatives believed that this was unnecessary and that the situation as it existed was the natural order that shouldn't be fixed. Neither side would fit at all into modern common morality.

wtbob 11y ago

Historically, eugenics was a progressive issue. It makes sense, since conservatives tend to be much more cautious about upsetting the applecart that is civilisation, while progressives are much more eager to change and improve things.