Morality of Eugenics?

Belgarion

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,624
Australia
#11
Until said psychopath has committed a crime, I see no reason they or any other person should be subject to the government interfering in their lives.

And the government should never have any say in who gets to procreate and who doesn't. Nor should any tests or scans be conducted on people who haven't given consent.
I generally agree, with the exception of people who are not mentally competent to understand the process of birthing and raising children.
 
Feb 2017
203
Canada
#13
You can't filter sociopaths out of our species because evolution tends toward sociopathy. Being successful at reproduction by definition means you're good at amassing resources at the expense of other people and your environment.

So even if you culled them all, they would just come back again.
 
Aug 2016
917
US&A
#14
Since everyone seems more or less in agreement, let me play devil's advocate.

It seems like sociopathy must be either not be conducive in many conditions to procreation, or it must be very difficult to inherit for some other reason. Empathy is something that vast amounts of different species of complex organisms share. For example, I don't think a worm likely has much empathy, but dogs, wolves, and virtually all social animals including us, seem to. It seems more likely that empathy is something more likely to increase the chances of breeding than otherwise. However, it seems like the more complex societies of humans might change this dynamic. For example, how a totalitarian ruler often cares little about anyone beyond themselves and their immediate (and most powerful) subordinates. So, they could potentially influence the amount of sociopathic tendencies in future societies via rape. Successful soldiers could also be more likely to be sociopaths. Often-times these women will not survive, or they will find some way to abort their pregnancy, but the greater chance to affect society is still there.

Psychology is largely seen as a fairly respectable science today, and they do have a list of sociopathic traits. If a large group of psychologists unanimously found an individual to display ALL of the necessary traits to be considered a sociopath and would therefore all agree that a diagnoses of sociopathy was warranted, would it then be reasonable to prevent that person from breeding? Assuming they could do so without ending that person's life or otherwise inhibiting them in any other way?
 
Aug 2016
917
US&A
#15
This is merely a personal opinion of yours, there is no scientific basis for the claim

A brain scan does not have any ability to identify psychopaths.
I apologize if you are offended by this thread, but this IS the controversial history forum.
If you doubt that there is scientific evidence you might do well to ask if there is, rather than claiming they are unsupported.

How would you know? Do you have some expertise on this subject?

Here is my evidence.
The Neuroscientist Who Discovered He Was a Psychopath | Science | Smithsonian
APA Dictionary of Psychology
Antisocial Personality Disorder | Psychology Today
DSM 5 Sociopath Diagnostic Definitions And Symptoms | Betterhelp
https://www.forbes.com/sites/victor...ween-psychopathy-and-leadership/#58c3655d4104
 
Last edited:
Feb 2017
203
Canada
#16
Since everyone seems more or less in agreement, let me play devil's advocate.

It seems like sociopathy must be either not be conducive in many conditions to procreation, or it must be very difficult to inherit for some other reason. Empathy is something that vast amounts of different species of complex organisms share. For example, I don't think a worm likely has much empathy, but dogs, wolves, and virtually all social animals including us, seem to. It seems more likely that empathy is something more likely to increase the chances of breeding than otherwise. However, it seems like the more complex societies of humans might change this dynamic. For example, how a totalitarian ruler often cares little about anyone beyond themselves and their immediate (and most powerful) subordinates. So, they could potentially influence the amount of sociopathic tendencies in future societies via rape. Successful soldiers could also be more likely to be sociopaths. Often-times these women will not survive, or they will find some way to abort their pregnancy, but the greater chance to affect society is still there.

Psychology is largely seen as a fairly respectable science today, and they do have a list of sociopathic traits. If a large group of psychologists unanimously found an individual to display ALL of the necessary traits to be considered a sociopath and would therefore all agree that a diagnoses of sociopathy was warranted, would it then be reasonable to prevent that person from breeding? Assuming they could do so without ending that person's life or otherwise inhibiting them in any other way?
I suspect that a lot of what we identify as empathy among people just serves to act justly toward people in our immediate environment and families, which means good social relationships with these people, and better odds of procreation (e.g. we aren't abandoned by social supports).

If even average people were truly empathetic and caring they'd dedicate their lives to the needy, but this type of thing is completely contrary to the imperative of evolution, which is oriented to survival/reproduction of the self.

And so I don't think sociopathy/psychopathy should necessarily be looked at as a condition, per se, but rather an extreme along a spectrum of empathetic behaviour. In the same way someone could be an extreme introvert. And so over time, because the ability to acquire resources at the expense of others leads to more children, eventually we should see genetic recombination result in sociopathy/psychopathy.

So in other words, you can't cull psychopaths just like you can't cull extroverts. It's an intrinsic part of our genome.
 
Jul 2016
8,963
USA
#18
Psychology is largely seen as a fairly respectable science today, and they do have a list of sociopathic traits. If a large group of psychologists unanimously found an individual to display ALL of the necessary traits to be considered a sociopath and would therefore all agree that a diagnoses of sociopathy was warranted, would it then be reasonable to prevent that person from breeding? Assuming they could do so without ending that person's life or otherwise inhibiting them in any other way?
So you want human beings, knowingly corrupt and brutal animals who've truly succeeded at little beyond killing one another over the last couple thousand years, to get govt involved, institutions that are whereever and however are going to be power hungry corrupt individuals, to create a registry of discovered sociopaths that would then be barred from procreation by force of law and full power of govt? Great idea. I'm sure that can't at all be abused. I'm sure a sociopathic politician with a sociopathic doctor buddy couldn't use your brilliant idea to prevent enemies from breeding, to prevent entire subsections of humanity to breed.

Its threads like these which ultimately tell me why democracies are horrific ideas.
 
Oct 2013
6,203
Planet Nine, Oregon
#19
Since everyone seems more or less in agreement, let me play devil's advocate.

It seems like sociopathy must be either not be conducive in many conditions to procreation, or it must be very difficult to inherit for some other reason. Empathy is something that vast amounts of different species of complex organisms share. For example, I don't think a worm likely has much empathy, but dogs, wolves, and virtually all social animals including us, seem to. It seems more likely that empathy is something more likely to increase the chances of breeding than otherwise. However, it seems like the more complex societies of humans might change this dynamic. For example, how a totalitarian ruler often cares little about anyone beyond themselves and their immediate (and most powerful) subordinates. So, they could potentially influence the amount of sociopathic tendencies in future societies via rape. Successful soldiers could also be more likely to be sociopaths. Often-times these women will not survive, or they will find some way to abort their pregnancy, but the greater chance to affect society is still there.

Psychology is largely seen as a fairly respectable science today, and they do have a list of sociopathic traits. If a large group of psychologists unanimously found an individual to display ALL of the necessary traits to be considered a sociopath and would therefore all agree that a diagnoses of sociopathy was warranted, would it then be reasonable to prevent that person from breeding? Assuming they could do so without ending that person's life or otherwise inhibiting them in any other way?
Rosenhan experiment - Wikipedia
Sounds like you might have "some kind of disorder" come with us..
 

Similar History Discussions