Eugenics: Moral and Ethical Principles of Controlled Reproduction

"Humanitarian eugenics strives to leave a genuine legacy of love to future generations: good health, high intelligence and noble character" (Future Generations, 2006). How could something so altruistic - the desire to leave behind health, intelligence and character - have ties to something equally demonic? Eugenics seems to have good intentions: the desire to improve our species to its highest form. The trouble with this idea is that those who do not meet the standards must be eliminated - or at the very least, prevented from spreading their "tainted" genetic code on to the next generation. This attempt to manipulate human genetics straddles a fine line between ethical and unethical, moral and immoral.

Applying principles of morality and ethical codes to the practice of eugenics first requires definitions of those terms. Morality is something that is innate and intrinsic, we are born with morals and they develop naturally. Morals are our personal definitions of 'right' and 'wrong'. Ethics are often based off of morals, but ethics involve a greater sense of reasoning and explanation. While our morals come from within, ethical codes often come from external sources: society, parents, laws, religion, etc. Ethically, the 'science' of eugenics may have had good intentions (to strengthen future generations) but their goals failed to take into account the rights that their laws would violate.

One definition of eugenics is "the study of methods to improve the human race by controlling reproduction" (American Bioethics Advisory Commission, 1999). Another definition of eugenics is identifying "so-called 'defective' family trees and subjecting them to legislated segregation and sterilization programs" (Black, 2003). We can see the moral and ethical basis in the overall goal of improving the human race in the first definition, but the second definition focuses on the unethical actions necessary to carry out that goal.

The History of Eugenics and the Eugenic Movement

The word eugenics (Greek for "good birth") was created in the late 1800s by Francis Galton, cousin to the "survival of the fittest" scientist Charles Darwin. Galton's ultimate goal was that each generation be made up of the best 'stock' available. Galton's main fear was that higher class individuals were not having enough children, so his simple solution was to encourage them to breed more (Geneletter, 1999). While Galton's definition of a "worthy" person may have been questionable, his tactics were not immoral. He did not attempt to prohibit "unworthy" individuals from breeding, nor did he result to killing or sterilization to improve the species.

Although Galton was responsible for creating the word eugenics, the principles and ideals were in place long before his contribution. In the ancient times, reproduction was encouraged among desirable couples, in part, to ensure that men who were "exceptionally courageous in war" had as many offspring as possible (Geneletter, 1999). This practice, however, did nothing to obstruct the rights of uncourageous men, placing it firmly within the boundaries of morality and ethics.

Another early instance of "improving" the human species is found in infant abandonment. Parents who could not care for their children would typically leave them in a public place with the hope that they would be found and taken in. If the infant had a physical abnormality, they would be left in an isolated place to insure their death (Geneletter, 1999). The practice of abandoning a 'sub par' child and leaving the infant for death would be unethically and immoral under any definitions.

The most commonly known forms of eugenics were common from the 1920s to the late 1970s. In this era, eugenics used abortion, sterilization and, in extreme cases, murder, to artificially control human reproduction. Hitler's attempt at creating a "master race" is one of the most violent and corrupt example of eugenics, resulting in the death of millions of Jews. Ethically, the eugenics movement failed when it praised the effectiveness of Hitler's "Master Race" plan. After killing millions of Jewish people (and, subsequently, losing a war) Hitler's master race idea was denounced, but the idea of eugenics continued to flourish.

A fact that is surprising to most, America also participated in corrupt eugenic practices. Between 1907 and 1960, at least 60,000 Americans were subject to involuntary sterilization, under American law. Most of these sterilizations were forced upon young women and was based on "poor or non-existent" evidence of mental retardation (Eugenics: 1883-1970, 1999).

In present times, eugenics is far from gone, though it is often practiced under different names. One example of diminished rights for mentally impaired individuals shows that as late as the 1990s "decisionally incapacitated" persons are being used for experimentation (Irving, 1999). This practice shows that these individuals are seen as worth less than others. Other forms of modified eugenics show in the field of genetic counseling. This form of eugenics is less of a violation because it attempts to prevent the very conception of 'unfit' offspring. Another related example is abortion; many women choose to abort after receiving results of an abnormal amniocentesis.

Moral and Ethical Implications

As adults, we all have certain moral and ethical implications - things that we are obligated to do under the guidelines or morality or ethics. Eugenics, in my opinion, was a great moral and ethical failure. One would assume that moral and ethical humans would ensure that the rules and efforts of any legal movements would support all individuals - not just the rich and powerful. Eugenics did the exact opposite, removing 'competition' from less powerful humans and exalting the rich and powerful to the top. The leaders of society failed their moral obligation to protect helpless individuals from harm.

The eugenics movement is an example of something that may have started with good intentions but became an obstruction of human justice. Morally, supporters of eugenics failed to place themselves in the shoes of those being violated, choosing instead to believe that their actions were for the best. Ethically, the eugenic movement made a conscious decision to violate the rights of other individuals, going so far as to create sterilization laws.

Errors in Thought and Action

In my opinion, most of the erroneous actions of eugenics relate to the violation of human rights. Humans were categorized and ranked based on race, socioeconomic levels, and assumed intelligence. Those in power chose to push "lower class" individuals even further down to "protect" their own offspring from being outnumbered or endangered.

Errors in thinking are more subtle. If it is true that the underlying goals of eugenics were within the boundaries of morality, errors in thinking would be failing to consider the possibility of tyranny. Is it the responsibility of the 'inventors' of eugenics to consider that things might get out of hand? I think it was. Planting the seed or an ideal race and making the topic mainstream started a movement that got many people killed.

Conclusion and Summary

I believe the original goals behind eugenics were both morally and ethically sound. We, as humans, naturally strive to improve ourselves and our offspring, possibly as an attempt to ensure the survival of our personal genetic code. It is not unusual for us to think of ways to improve our phenotype (plastic surgery, diet, exercise, artificial enhancement, etc) or our genotype (selection of an 'appropriate' partner to procreate with, etc). If disease, lower-intelligence, criminal behavior and other 'defects' could be eliminated, the species as a whole would grow stronger have ensured survival. The altruistic aspects of this movement diminished as efforts to artificially improve the human genetic pool resulted in the obstruction of rights for those determined not the fit the ideal. Eugenics turned into a tool to legally exercise racism, hatred and bigotry against those in lower economical brackets, non-white and non-Christian persons.

Personally, I cannot see a value in the practice of eugenics. Similar to the animal world, many humans with genetic defects will not live to see adulthood, nor will they be able to reproduce. Morally, we as humans have a duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves, whether they are infants, children or incapacitated adults. Ethically those in power have the duty to follow the same moral code to ensure that appropriate laws are in place to provide the necessary protection. In terms of morality and ethics, the eugenic movement was a failure.

References

American Bioethics Advisory Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2006,

from http://www.all.org/abac/eugen02.htm

Black, Edwin. (2003). War Against the Weak. Retrieved September 24, 2006,

from http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/

Future Generations (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2006, from

http://www.eugenics.net/

Irving, Dianne N. (1999). Biomedical research with 'decisionally incapacitated'

human subjects: Legalization of a defunct normative bioethics theory.

Retrieved September 24, 2006, from American Bioethics Advisory Commission

Website: http://www.all.org/abac/dni004.htm