II. Prompt
You must argue that state-sponsored eugenics is either
(a) morally obligatory
or
b) morally prohibited.
That is, you must argue either that (a) the state is morally obligated to ensure that children yet to be born have better genes than they would naturally end up with if there were no intervention
or
(b) the state is morally prohibited from ensuring that children have better genes than they would naturally end up with if there were no intervention.
WARNING: Do not argue that state-sponsored eugenics is morally permissible but not morally obligatory.
WARNING: Do not consider practical difficulties such as the limits of our current knowledge of genetics, difficulties of fair and impartial administration of a state-sponsored eugenics program, or the possibility of government abuse motivated by racism or other false beliefs. Assume that (a) we have perfect knowledge of genetics, (b) the government can fairly and impartially administer a eugenics program, and (c) the program aims at genuine human good, not a racist or otherwise false theory of human good. Therefore, historical examples of eugenics are not relevant. No reasonable person doubts that eugenics has motivated wrong actions in the past. The question is whether it is wrong even if it is not based on racism or false beliefs about eugenics.
WARNING: Do not focus on the possibility of parents deciding on the genes of their own future children. That would be “private eugenics,” not state-sponsored eugenics. The question as to whether the government should permit this is a different one.
.
II. PromptYou must argue that state-sponsored eugenics is either .docx
1. II. Prompt
You must argue that state-sponsored eugenics is either
(a) morally obligatory
or
b) morally prohibited.
That is, you must argue either that (a) the state is morally
obligated to ensure that children yet to be born have better
genes than they would naturally end up with if there were no
intervention
or
(b) the state is morally prohibited from ensuring that children
have better genes than they would naturally end up with if there
were no intervention.
WARNING: Do not argue that state-sponsored eugenics is
morally permissible but not morally obligatory.
WARNING: Do not consider practical difficulties such as the
limits of our current knowledge of genetics, difficulties of fair
and impartial administration of a state-sponsored eugenics
program, or the possibility of government abuse motivated by
racism or other false beliefs. Assume that (a) we have perfect
knowledge of genetics, (b) the government can fairly and
impartially administer a eugenics program, and (c) the program
aims at genuine human good, not a racist or otherwise false
theory of human good. Therefore, historical examples of
eugenics are not relevant. No reasonable person doubts that
eugenics has motivated wrong actions in the past. The question
is whether it is wrong even if it is not based on racism or false
beliefs about eugenics.
WARNING: Do not focus on the possibility of parents deciding
on the genes of their own future children. That would be
“private eugenics,” not state-sponsored eugenics. The question
as to whether the government should permit this is a different
one.
