This is incorrect in that the term was not neutral before WW2 nor was Nazi Germany Eugenics really unique. Taking these claims one at a time:
>the term was value neutral.
By the late 1930s the academic community had largely moved on from eugenics, the catholic church denounced it 1930 with their Casti Connubii, the Eugenics Office Records closing in 1935 and finally Laughlin retiring in 1939. (The leading Eugenicist)In 1930s being a Eugenics was viewed much like homeopathy is viewed today.
>Until a certain Austrian painter decided to practice eugenics in a uniquely negative way,
Eugenics in the united states saw the rise of the "Moron Laws" and mass sterilization of marginalized communities in the US. In fact, Nazi Germany's Eugenics policies were largely inspired by US Eugenic legislation and actively promoted by US Eugenicist. (Particularly California) Heck mass sterilization programs in the US didn't even die with WW2 continuing into mid 1970s.
I'm troubled by this thread because the vibe I'm getting is Eugenics was only bad because the science wasn't there yet and the Nazi's did it, this time will be different. No, the aspect which made eugenics dangerous were inherently political and every bit as relevant today than they were a hundred years ago. (Who decides which traits should be "edited" out? What traits should be "edited" in? What policies should be legislated? Who is primarily impacted by these policies? How much agency do the people impacted by these policy have in the situation?)
> No. Someone violating the social contract doesn't give you permission to violate it yourself.
At what point does a party become free from the obligations of their social contract with the corporate media company then?
>And I didn't say it was always immoral, I said it was generally immoral. One should assume "generally" rather than "always"... in general.
My apologies, based off your previous comments I assumed you were taking a firm ethical stance here. With that said then, I just want to point out that the claim "vigilante justice is immoral" is far from being ethical consensus among philosophers. (Communitarians vs Forfeiturist)
Ultimately this is outside the scope of our conversation so I'd rather not get hung up on it... the tone of your claim just struck me as oddly bold.
Since the assumption is that "the media broke the terms of the social contract" wouldn't my obligation to follow their terms be suspended? (Much like our social contract not to physically harm one another can be suspended while they are actively trying to physically harm you)
>If so, that'd be vigilante justice and still immoral.
Also I don't want to get to off topic, but I want to challenge your premise that vigilante justice is always immoral. (Is it immoral for a parent to punish a child for jaywalking instead of calling the police?)
>the term was value neutral.
By the late 1930s the academic community had largely moved on from eugenics, the catholic church denounced it 1930 with their Casti Connubii, the Eugenics Office Records closing in 1935 and finally Laughlin retiring in 1939. (The leading Eugenicist)In 1930s being a Eugenics was viewed much like homeopathy is viewed today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casti_connubii - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
>Until a certain Austrian painter decided to practice eugenics in a uniquely negative way,
Eugenics in the united states saw the rise of the "Moron Laws" and mass sterilization of marginalized communities in the US. In fact, Nazi Germany's Eugenics policies were largely inspired by US Eugenic legislation and actively promoted by US Eugenicist. (Particularly California) Heck mass sterilization programs in the US didn't even die with WW2 continuing into mid 1970s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics - https://alexwellerstein.com/publications/wellerstein_stateso...
I'm troubled by this thread because the vibe I'm getting is Eugenics was only bad because the science wasn't there yet and the Nazi's did it, this time will be different. No, the aspect which made eugenics dangerous were inherently political and every bit as relevant today than they were a hundred years ago. (Who decides which traits should be "edited" out? What traits should be "edited" in? What policies should be legislated? Who is primarily impacted by these policies? How much agency do the people impacted by these policy have in the situation?)