In 2014, California introduced the anti-forced sterilization legislation while also passing the Eugenics Compensation Act. This monumental and cathartic move was as prosperous as it was sobering. The last recorded case of forced sterilization within the United States was recorded in 2010 when select women prisoners were forced to be sterilized as dictated by the state: it was the last recorded case of eugenics practiced in the U.S, or at least, the latest one that was nationally recognized. The roots of eugenics span ages- consisting of individuals dictating the genetic blueprint of those in their culture, community, and of those around them. The goal? To maximize the utility and condition of human beings on multiple factors; most notably, aesthetic, physical, and intellectual capabilities of individuals belonging to a particular group to ultimately create the ideal human reproductive pool for future generations.
For the sake of clarity, the definition of eugenics in use is as follows: the selective, controlled breeding process of human beings in the aim to maximize desirable traits. This definition implies sterilization and forced breeding as part of the eugenics process. From Plato to Galton, to uses in 19th-century medicinal warfare, each participating eugenicist had one goal in mind, and that was to improve the human condition how they saw fit. Yet, with each of these “ideal human blueprints” as conceived by each eugenicist, a new schematic of the ideal race flourished. From desirable bodies to racial purity, to intellectual superiority, the span of eugenics knew no bounds and continues to do so. The fundamental question we must ask ourselves here is, is it morally permissible to selectively breed individuals to create an ideal version of humanity? If so, who decides this monumental and deciding course for humanity? What are the possible consequences? If there are negative consequences, can they be morally reparated or justified if it suits the interest of the greatest number of people?
Here, the exploration of eugenics and its long and controversial history will shed light on these perplexing questions. To gain the best understanding as to how to answer these questions, we will look at three key factors in studying Eugenics in the past. The exploration will be three-fold: the intention, the execution, and its impact. As we look at these questions through the scope of utilitarianism, we explore not only the dangers of Eugenics, but the slippery slope of such a proposed idea. As Saint Bernard of Clairvaux once said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. What seems to be the greatest good for all, may not indeed be the best for all, as the best, arguably, can be morally and ethically subjective.
The history of Eugenics is just as fascinating as it is uncanny. Perhaps a fundamental example of this is what is perceived to be the first proposition of eugenics by Plato. Plato’s interpretation of eugenics is fluid amongst most eugenics sympathizers. This meant that those with superior genes must thrive, while those who have lesser genes must be eradicated in some way, shape, or form. Keep in mind, eugenics is translated to “good creation” from Latin after all. Plato in tandem with other Greek philosophers basked in the idea of perfect human creation. After all, the proposal of eugenics is a good idea, in theory, the majority of the population could benefit from its rewards such as improved health, dashing offspring, economic prosperity, and intellectual superiority. In fact, such irresistible qualities seemed too good to pass up, so what was to be done to make this happen? The execution of this glittering utopia paved the way for multiple ideas. These ideas to most come across as brilliantly arrogant and inhumane, yet the proposal of state-sanctioned eugenics programs suggested ideas that completely tore down at family lines. Plato expressed the idea of raising children in communities rather than families. Those with children who are considered superior, ought to get the attention and care from the community, while those less desirable are left to become “black sheep”. These superior children were to be set up in what someone would call a “breeding program”, where suitable offspring would be encouraged to procreate. This concept of a society being stripped of family bonds and being ushered in a new wave of eugenic reality sprouted in prolific exploration, but it never fully came to fruition. From what historical sources reveal, this plan was never executed on a grand scale. Nevertheless, the impact of this proposal led to a more in-depth look at eugenics for many years into the future.
The proposal of Plato’s idea; however, sparked a more concise and scientific study of eugenics. One that was more concrete and scientifically “sound”. Sir Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin, coined the concept of eugenics as his own in the early-mid 1800s. His proposition of eugenics keyed in on research and trial of the originally proposed idea of Plato. The studies conducted by Sir Francis Galton suggested that when a human being with more desirable traits breeds with one that does not have those traits, those desirable traits actually diminish over time. This finding shaped and paved the way for the understanding of eugenics, and it modernized people’s perceptions of the true potential of medical and genetic outreach. Sir Francis Galton’s intentions to prove the idea of eugenics paved the way for future generations to explore and taint the very idea of eugenics. It’s the proposal and scientific backing caused eugenics to be “veiled” as a practice merely to help the human condition. Yet, in the slew of multiple moral and ethical positions, the majority of people who underwent such eugenic studies have suffered immense and irreversible consequences. One that, quite ironically, hindered the very health, and spirit of future generations. The following two historical experiments were led on a grand scale and had notable health consequences to the majority of people involved. The study of eugenics transformed from exploration to exploitation on a much grander scale.
The progressive movement in the U.S began at the turn of the 20th century. The markets were booming, the industrial revolution paved the way to some of the modern-day’s most prized creations. Prosperity was plenty, and resources seemed to be boundless and limitless. Yet, the obsession with the idea of “eugenics” flourished among universities and colleges. “Desirables” of that generation were clearly defined and legislated, and so were the “undesirables”. Scientific experts and intellectual elites had an established and collected definition of what that exactly entailed. Unsurprisingly, the WASP was the definition of this superiority. The degenerates? As listed it was the, “...immigrants from southern and eastern Europe and Asia, backward peoples in the territories of the new American empire, African Americans, the feebleminded, [and] the epileptic”. Arguments against this proposition included the impact of Social Darwinism, meaning that humans, in some ways, we're already eugenically predisposed to obtaining desirable traits through survival of the fittest. According to “Progressive Eugenicists”, that idea was simply not going to work. Their explanation for this argument that humans are no longer naturally selecting their mates, but socially selecting. Meaning that with all the complexities of societal evolution, Social Darwinism is simply irrelevant (a quite ballsy assumption). Despite these arguments, these ideas are arguably harmless. After all, dangerous ideas are in fact ideas, and not palpable. Or at least, they weren’t at first. These ideas after some time, no longer confined themselves in the minds of “Progressive Eugenicists” and university walls. The eugenics movement sparked outrage in equal amounts as support also gained traction. In 1907, 31 states passed sterilization laws which prompted those who were in mental institutions to be forcibly sterilized. In the deciding case Buck v. Bell in 1921, the Virginia Sterilization Act was upheld, and forcible sterilization prevailed for the majority of the 20th century. The consequences of this manifestation in forced sterilization to contain undesirable traits not only affected those victims in the program, but it inspired one of the most notorious regimes in world history to propel one of the most dangerous medical practices in history, which shaped the view of eugenics and its purposes in the future. This arguably, hurt thousands more than it let prosper.
During WWII, while the German Nazi regime was prevailing and spreading its rule all across Europe, and more people came under the clutches of the party. In the broad array of medical experiments, mostly directed under Josef Mengele, a prominent german scientist who conducted and instructed most medical experiments of prisoners within concentration camps. To better establish the very clear guidelines of what it means to be a “superior race”, in the eyes of the regime, the Nazi Party established the “Aryan ideal”, referring to those with blonde hair and blue eyes as the “ubermensch”, borrowed from Nietzsche’s philosophical writings (which were grossly, and unfortunately misinterpreted). The goal here was to proliferate this master race and diminish the lesser ones. This lesser race included those non-affiliated with Aryan characteristics, were, as history has revealed, become one of the largest and most brutal subjects of mass human extermination. While the use of concentration and POW camps is well known and understood, yet another major practice stemmed from this mass extermination. Under the regime, german scientists put in place a “racial hygiene movement”. From genetic experiments ranging from incest and forced breeding to the easier form of eugenics, which was forced sterilization, the Nazi regime stopped at no cost to propel the race into what they believed was the ideal for the betterment of humanity. The people used as subjects were of many descents ranging from Jewish to German, to French and many more. Yet, the most staggering discovery regarding this practice was the impact and influence that the U.S’s forced sterilization program from the Progressive Era had on what was going on in Germany during WWII. As stated in "The Nazi Physicians as Leaders in Eugenics and "Euthanasia", documents uncovered by historians noticed that German Scientists cited the U.S. as models for their sterilization program and their genetic experiments. Specifically, California- where most of the sterilization of the “unfit”, and “feeble-minded” took place in the early 1900s to the early-mid 1900s. The intent of the U.S was more similar to the Nazi regimes that we might assume. Yet, the stigma is shared with the Nazi party and not the U.S. Although it’s not easy to answer why, and it may never be known, there is indeed lesser awareness regarding the eugenics movement in the U.S. It’s seldom taught in textbooks, and unfortunately, it’s consequences are met with less scrutiny. Yet, the intentions were the same: the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Eugenics seeks the latter statement almost exclusively, and on paper, the idea of eugenics doesn’t seem so far fetched in terms of intent. Who wouldn’t want humanity to be better off? But in the sea of moral subjectivity and the complicated task of obtaining ethical objectivity, is eugenics something to be openly practiced?
The exploration of eugenics history through three main discussion points (the intent, the execution, and the impact), revealed that the quest for the perfect human condition is a complicated and seemingly-doomed course for humanity. What starts with good intentions often led to the very worst consequences. Although these consequences, at least initially in the origins of eugenics were really only ideas and experiments, they catalyzed the explosive movements seen in the Progressive Era and Nazi Party eugenics. John Stuart Mill quotes utilitarianism as “the minimization of pain”, and “acting upon the action which serves the greatest good for the greatest amount of people”. The dangers of eugenics, while a vast array of problems lie with experimental practice, most of the dangers deal with a moral subjectivity “slippery slope”.
The experiments described revealed two key things: 1.) All the experiments or thought experiments came from people of power, and 2.) Each one of these eugenicists, arguably, had a different version of what is considered ideal. In the slew of cultural, ethical, and political differences, the power of a few individuals in this regard can mean catastrophic consequences for those deemed “unfit” by the state, ruler, or committee. Not to mention, while the improvement of the human condition for most people with minimization of pain seems like a good idea, the explored consequences ironically did the exact opposite. For the Nazi’s this meant genocide, for the U.S, it meant discrediting and yanking the privileges of their citizens. This intention of minimizing “unfit” humans has proven to act as a better thought experiment rather than a medical movement to improve the human condition. Such power to dictate human kinds course of hereditary existence corrupts absolutely. Acts like these breed ideas of superiority, racism, sexism, and perhaps religious conflicts as well. Which in turn simply do not cause the overall betterment of society. The revelation of those two key defining observations which were fluid among all those discussed. Exhibiting once again, as to why eugenics may just be an example of how the “good” for all people may not actually be the defying “good” for all of humanity.
The arguments laid out through exploration of these historical occurrences prove that eugenics ought not to be used to better the human condition based on utilitarianism as it does not promote the wellness of most human beings. Everyone seeks minimization of pain by increasing the “good”, yet what is “good” is morally and ethically subjective. Those who practiced and put in place eugenics programs were people of power, so the “good” for them, may not be the “good” for all. Despite this, eugenics has taught many the dangers of human hubris. The sort of byproduct of eugenics almost always involves the discrimination and isolation of certain traits or characteristics which lie in the very core of human diversity. This byproduct, historically, has sent humanity on a course of self-destruction where those deemed unfavorable paid the ultimate cost in the quest for the perfect human condition.
Comments