Question

Eugenics
Define negative and positive eugenics. Explain why positive eugenics is generally considered to be morally worse than negative eugenics. Is positive eugenics always morally wrong? (State why you believe it is or it isn’t wrong.) Cite two eugenics programs (they can be historically accurate or made-up) and compare them morally. Discuss what makes one morally better than the other. Cite at least two specific factors that make the better eugenics program morally preferable. Be specific and detailed.

Answer 1

Thanks for asking the question.

I will try answering and explaining each and every point mentioned in question one after the other.

What is EUGENICS?

So, Eugenics is basically a Greek word in which 'EU' means 'GOOD' and 'genics' means 'growing and coming into being'

It is a set of beliefs and practices that will aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population, typically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior and promoting those judged to be superior or dominant.

Now let's understand the basic idea of positive and negative eugenics.

positive eugenics refers to an effort aimed at increasing desirable traits while negative eugenics refers to efforts aimed at decreasing undesirable traits.

positive eugenic measures have included promoting the idea that healthy, high-achieving people should have children, or have larger families; introducing institutions and policies that encourage marriage and family life for such people; and establishing sperm banks where eugenically desirable traits, such as intelligence, are criteria either for donors or are listed as present in the donor for users to consider in their choices.

Whereas, the Negative eugenic measures have included immigration restriction based on putatively eugenically undesirable traits, including race, nationality, and ethnicity; discouragement or prohibition of marriage and family life for those with eugenically undesirable traits; and sexual segregation, sterilization, and euthanasia of those with such traits.

Now coming to the next question of why positive eugenics is generally considered to be morally worse than negative eugenics. There are quite a few important reasons for this The most common arguments against any attempt to either avoid a trait through germline genetic engineering or to create more children with desired traits fall into three categories: worries about the presence of force or compulsion, the imposition of arbitrary standards of perfection,  inequities that might arise from allowing the practice of eugenic choice. The first worry is not one that seems insurmountable as an objection to allowing individual choice about germline changes. The latter two may also not discount eugenic choices.

And now to explain these reasons the first one Certainly it is morally objectionable for governments or institutions or any third party to compel or coerce anyone's reproductive behavior. The right to reproduce without interference from third parties is one of the fundamental freedoms recognized by international law and moral theories from a host of ethical traditions. However, the goals of obtaining perfection, avoiding disease, or pursuing health with respect to individuals need not involve coercion or force.*

A couple may wish to have a baby who has no risk of inheriting Tay-Sachs disease or transmitting sickle cell disease. Or they may want a child with particular hair color or sex. If their choice is free and informed then there is no reason to think that such a choice is immoral on grounds of force or coercion ..

Another reason is Some who finds the pursuit of perfection morally objectionable worry about more than coercion. They note that it is simply not clear which traits or attributes which are properly perceived as perfect or optimal. The decision about what a trait or behavior is good or healthy depends on the environment, culture, and that a child will face. Stigma and prejudice need not be the inevitable result of choice.

The first of the two Eugenics programs is the one eugenics had been scientifically discredited in the United States due to the aforementioned difficulties in defining inherited characteristics, as well as poor sampling and statistical methods. In Germany, however, the eugenics movement was just gaining momentum. For instance, in 1933, the Nazi-controlled government issued the so-called "Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases," under which at least 400,000 Germans were involuntarily sterilized for having hereditary conditions such as mental illness, epilepsy, "feeblemindedness," or physical deformities. The passage of such measures continued over the course of the decade, and by the late 1930s, Hitler's eugenic-based national program of "race hygiene" had escalated into a program of euthanasia targeting both children and adults with various mental and physical disorders. This policy eventually culminated in the ghastly deaths of millions of Jews.

During the 1930s eugenics gained considerable popular support across the United States. Hygiene courses in public schools and eugenics courses in colleges spread eugenic-minded values to many. A eugenics exhibit titled “Pedigree-Study in Man” was featured at the Chicago World’s Fair in 1933–34. Consistent with the fair’s “Century of Progress” theme, stations were organized around efforts to show how the favorable traits in the human population could best be perpetuated. Contrasts were drawn between the emulative presidential Roosevelt family and the degenerate “Ishmael” family (one of several pseudonymous family names used, the rationale for which was not given). By studying the ancestral traits, fairgoers were urged to adopt the progressive view that responsible individuals should pursue marriage ever mindful of eugenics principles. Booths were set up at county and state fairs promoting “fitter families” contests, and medals werre awarded to eugenically sound families. Drawing again upon long-standing eugenic practices in agriculture, popular eugenic advertisements claimed it was about time that *-humans received the same attention in the breeding of better babies that had been given to livestock and crops for centuries.

So it is the second program which is a better eugenics program morally preferable.

(-The source for the two Eugenic programs is britannica.com. Even though I am having a rough idea about the mentioned eugenic programs since it was history I wanted to be more specific and apt and hence took the help of a britannica.com. Feel free to ask any doubt regarding this in the comment section I will surely be answering your questions on this )

Please do let me know if I can help you with anything.

BEST OF LUCK

Thank you