Discussion Questions:
- Is there an ethical difference between positive and negative eugenics for human beings? Explain whether you believe one or both to be ethical or unethical? (up to 3 points)
- As a public administrator in a position required to carry out the eugenics program, what choices did you have? How would you have proceeded when the Supreme Court upheld the forced sterilization and eugenics laws in Virginia? Explain your reasoning and reference the course reading/lectures to support your statement. (up to 5 points)
REPLY TO :
There is no ethical difference in both positive and negative eugenics, Its basically choosing to weed out undesirable traits throug selective breeding or through sterilizations/death. This kind of “science” only brings harm to the offspring, it takes away the right of people to choose whether they wish to be sterilized or not, and destroy any perception of choice. Its completely unethical, I frankly don’t see any kind of happiness coming from this, there is no benefit for the most number of people. To me this is completely unethical all the way through.
– As the public administrator specifically one that would use Svarras Ethics Triangle I would use a mix, it is my duty as a public servant to look out for the best interest of my voters and their health. I can’t simply just vacate my seat, because while it will mend my conscience that I would have nothing to do with this, I would still leave my people at the mercy of someone else. In terms of choices you can simply expose the truth (whistleblowing) about the forced sterilizations that were happening. Simply because it is the right thing to do in terms of virtues and like mentioned previously it is my duty to do what is best for my people. If the court basically force me to uphold those laws then I would simply do more to challenge that rule even if it was passed by the court.
REPLY TO :
1. Personally, I do not think that there is an ethical difference between positive and negative eugenics. Positive eugenics has to do with the interference of offspring in a way that they create an increase in desirable traits in the offspring, Negative eugenics is the interference of offspring by decreasing the numbers of offspring with “undesirable traits. Both to me seem unethical, in what world is it okay to pick and choose what traits are desirable in offspring. It is ethically incorrect to favor an set of traits in offspring and give them superiority to other. The sterilization of low income and colored people vs the influx of offspring in white wealthy neighborhoods are both very unethically.
2. If I was in the position of a public official, my duty would be to uphold any kind of requirement made by the Supreme Court. Would I agree with the requirement? Absolutely not but when you’re working in the public sector I don’t think you have a choice when it comes to enforcing regulation even if you’re morally against it. In past lecture we’ve touch upon the topic of public officials refusing to completely their job obligations because of their personal beliefs, we’ve agreed upon the fact that it is incredibly difficult to but your morals before the law when you work in the public sector. Regardless if the requirement of the law is unethical or not, if it is ruled to be upheld you must do as the law says as a public official.
