That’s the thing. I believe, if handled correctly, progress could be made with eugenics. But I agree, my views are radical and by definition not fit for standard policy or any teaching format.
My definition of non-innocence is someone who has caused physical or emotional harm to another living being with malicious intent, regardless of provocation. Cruelty is the intent to repeat. This is the base for my laws of morality.
Sorry to necro this, but by your very own definition, you should be neutered. Wishing to neuter people or conduct eugenicist programs is causing physical and emotional harm to people.
Seeing as you want this to be a blanket policy, the intent to repeat is given. Your own definition makes your policies and your ideals not just radical, but amoral within this framework.
We as a species spent so, so long learning the painful lesson that eugenics is an awful idea. Can we please not relitigate it? That is, can we please not shift the Overton window back to the ideology that directly led to and inspired the Holocaust?
Thank you
That’s the thing. I believe, if handled correctly, progress could be made with eugenics. But I agree, my views are radical and by definition not fit for standard policy or any teaching format.
My definition of non-innocence is someone who has caused physical or emotional harm to another living being with malicious intent, regardless of provocation. Cruelty is the intent to repeat. This is the base for my laws of morality.
Sorry to necro this, but by your very own definition, you should be neutered. Wishing to neuter people or conduct eugenicist programs is causing physical and emotional harm to people.
Seeing as you want this to be a blanket policy, the intent to repeat is given. Your own definition makes your policies and your ideals not just radical, but amoral within this framework.