Eugenics - Philosophical Concept | Alexandria
Eugenics, a term that once echoed with the promise of societal betterment, now stands as a stark reminder of science’s potential for misuse and the dangers of applying simplistic solutions to complex human problems. Often misunderstood as merely the study of genetics, it was instead a social philosophy advocating for the improvement of human hereditary traits through promotion of higher reproduction of people with desired traits (positive eugenics), and reduced reproduction of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics). Dare we assume we understand its full implications, given its tumultuous history and the shadows it still casts?
The conceptual seeds of eugenics can be traced back to ancient philosophical considerations of selective breeding, as seen in Plato's Republic, where he discusses controlled mating to produce a guardian class. However, the formal articulation of eugenics emerged in the late 19th century. Sir Francis Galton, a statistician and half-cousin of Charles Darwin, coined the term "eugenics" in 1883, publishing his ideas most comprehensively in his 1869 book Hereditary Genius. Prompted by the Darwinian theory of evolution, Galton had sought to apply principles of selective breeding to humans, believing that talent and moral character were inherited traits. This was part of the "great conversation" of humanity, as relevant figures like Plato, Darwin and Galton contributed to the ideas of "philosophy", "moral reasoning" and the impact of inheritance on "behavioral ethics".
The early 20th century witnessed eugenics gain substantial traction worldwide, influencing social policies and sparking intense debates. Thinkers, scientists, and policymakers across the political spectrum embraced eugenic ideas, manifesting differently depending on local contexts. In the United States, eugenics fueled immigration restrictions, the "experiment ethics" of forced sterilizations, and laws prohibiting interracial marriage under the banner of preserving the "purity" of the white race. These policies, upheld by court decisions like Buck v. Bell (1927), resulted in the sterilization of tens of thousands of individuals deemed “feeble-minded," a chilling example of "moral disengagement". Germany later adopted similar principles during the rise of Nazism, leading to the horrors of the Holocaust, where eugenics justified the extermination of entire groups labeled as "undesirable." This era presents a complex "moral dilemma" where "fairness bias" took precedence over fundamental human rights. Furthermore, eugenics intersects with the "fairness test" that often highlights the tension between "equity vs equality." The concept reveals a tension between "natural rights philosophy" and attempts at "ethical formalism."
The horrors of World War II served as a watershed moment, discrediting eugenics in the eyes of many. Yet, its legacy lingers, reminding us of the seductive appeal of simplistic solutions to social ills and the importance of ethical vigilance in the face of scientific advancements. "Ethical obligations in AI" raises new issues, such as the potential "fairness in AI" and the challenge of preventing the replication of past prejudices. As we grapple with questions of genetic engineering, reproductive technologies, and the potential for "human enhancement and ethics," have we truly learned the lessons of eugenics?