7 ms·
I am saying precisely what I said: it is wrong to do. Not all that which is legal is moral, nor is all that which is illegal immoral. The state is an enforcer o
by _bin_ 1y ago
I am saying precisely what I said: it is wrong to do. Not all that which is legal is moral, nor is all that which is illegal immoral. The state is an enforcer of the social contract and a monopolist of violence, not an arbiter of morality.
I believe people do plenty of immoral things but do not necessarily believe we ought to use that state violence to prevent or punish them. Adultery, for instance, is one of the more contemptible choices one can make, and yet goes unpunished by the state. Some jurisdictions don’t even consider it strongly in divorce proceedings.
- akerl_ 1y agoSo you don’t want eugenics to be legally required, but you think participating in collective eugenics is the morally right thing for everybody to do?
- _bin_ 1y agoPrecisely right, yes.
- tptacek 1y agoThis is indistinguishable from what most eugenicists were saying at the turn of the 20th century. I hear you loud and clear: you don't want to forcibly sterilize anybody. OK, good on you for that.
- _bin_ 1y agoThis isn't an argument against anything I said. You can't say "some people in the past also said this." That tells nobody anything about whether it's right or wrong.
- pvg 1y agoThat's because it's one of the things that we know, empirically, turned out so wrong, it's one of the wrongest things humanity has ever wronged. Most people don't need to be told that, for this obvious reason.
- _bin_ 1y ago[flagged]
- akerl_ 1y agoThis isn’t a slippery slope. Your starting point, where it’s a good idea to socially pressure people to not reproduce based on your assessment of what traits are sufficiently undesirable, is already bad. We don’t have to slide anywhere.
- _bin_ 1y ago“My assessment” is kind of uncharitable. Again I’d take huntingtons as an easy example of something that consigns one’s children to an early and horrible death. Not to mention in a society where we often bear the cost of medical care, social pressures are inevitable and more justified. Why do you think it’s bad? This is a strong opinion weakly held for me; I recognize it’s controversial but fail to see why it’s not an obvious choice.
- pvg 1y agoThis is quite literally a slippery slope argument No it isn't. If you want to do Nazi apologia, go right ahead but at least have the integrity to own it. They started with a bit of 'what if the state decides which life is worth living' and quickly ended up with industrial extermination factories which had the only purpose of murdering people they deemed unworthy. There have been, of course, many other atrocities throughout human history with many victims. But none were the moral equivalent - it's not a numberwang olymplics. Arguing otherwise is morally blind and intellectually chickenshit. You want to say Hitler was a little bit right - then just say that.
- _bin_ 1y agoI have no particular love for the nazis. As I’ve said multiple times, I am against the state deciding this, which means I am against the top of the slide down. I disagree; I think some were morally worse. The transatlantic slave trade, the holodomor, leopold’s congo, and the khmer rouge all rank worse, as far as I’m concerned. Not in terms of numbers, in terms of horror factor. Refusing to engage because “oh the nazis said something” is intellectually chickenshit. The core difference is some things which are reprehensible when backed by state violence are fine when chosen individually or encouraged by social pressures.