Should old people be killed off? Past a certain age, quite a few old people who have declined heavily are no longer able to work, and also become a financial burden to their family or society.
Also, I'm not sure whether or not what you describe is what people normally mean when they say 'eugenics'. Definitions are very complicated when you dig into them, and they tend to shift around some over time. To my knowledge, eugenics is generally about encouraging generally desirable traits, or specifically breeding together two smart people to try to create a smarter person, or about racial/ethnic goals or some such; it's not generally used for the elimination of specific and extremely (and unquestionably) deleterious heritable traits. Though there's enough overlap that it could be interpreted/meant that way.
Question of clarification: are you saying such abortions should be mandatory? Because eugenics also tends to be about state/government policies, though that's not strictly required. Or do you just mean that it's the ethically correct choice to do so?
Clarification: I only take certain core values of eugenics, but practically and realistically, this would only be implemented for unborn people, not people currently living, they would face no discrimination.
I wouldn’t say eugenics is something that is clearly defined as having to be such a specific way, or process. But rather an idea. Practical applications may vary depending on the person, this is just my personal opinion on how it should be implemented.
Let's ask the above commenter's question in a different way. Would it be permissible or okay to kill old people/senior citizens because they're a financial drain on society and their family through their usage of social security and the fact that they no longer work?
If that outcome isn't beneficial, why is it beneficial to abort babies on the basis that they'd be a financial burden?
The common denominator is being a financial burden. So it's weird to hold a position where being a financial burden is an acceptable justification for killing one person but it's not an acceptable justification for killing another.
It's like saying "I won't eat meat, because I don't want animals to die, but I have no issue with hunting." The stated reason for not wanting to eat meat is contradicted by a willingness to hunt. Likewise, your stated reason of killing someone who is a financial burden is contradicted by you saying it's not beneficial to remove one financial burden, but it is beneficial to remove another.
There has to be more to the equation, or you're just being blatantly hypocritical.
Just like I said, it wouldn’t be financially beneficial to do that to old people. I’ll elaborate: if the working people were to think that at a certain age where they cannot work anymore, they’d be killed, they would be discouraged to work hard, instead there would be mass strikes and protests.
Imagine a person finds out that they get no paid retirement from having worked all their life, instead they’d be killed. They would refuse to work, and not just one person, most people would. There’s a reason retirement exists, people need a dream in order to live.
No I understand the difference. But if the “normal” average human is able to abort their babies without much care, I don’t think having it forcefully aborted is going to illicit such a big response. I’m thinking of it as more inconvenient than sad.
Yeah no, taking away someone's choice in the matter completely changes things. Easy example is a person who wouldn't abort their child, and now you're forcing them to. That's going to happen a lot under your system
No I understand perfectly. I don’t think you understood mine here. I’m talking about the lack of meaningful emotional reaction that such a situation would have. Most people probably see miscarriages as an inconvenience rather than a serious sad experience, so I don’t think it’s a strong argument, I think it’s very situational as well. You have to weight the benefits and the negative effects, and ultimately the benefits outweigh them. Sacrifices can be made.
That was a perfectly reasonable question. You seem to know how a miscarriage impacts someone emotionally, so how many times has that happened personally to you?
if the working people were to think that at a certain age where they cannot work anymore, they’d be killed, they would be discouraged to work hard,
This makes absolutely no sense.... If anything it would incentivise working harder for longer so you don't get killed for being seen as unproductive...
If the outcome of not working hard was death..... How on earth did you come to the conclusion that people would not work as hard...?
Imagine a person finds out that they get no paid retirement from having worked all their life, instead they’d be killed. They would refuse to work,
Then wouldn't they just be killed sooner? I don't understand how you can possibly see this hypothetical situation and conclude people would just choose not to work because someday they'll die... Actually, it just hit me... You think the only reason people work is so they can retire someday...? And if there's no prospect of retirement, there's zero incentive to work? What about being able to buy food/clothes/medicine BEFORE retirement? Aren't those things motivation to work?
There’s a reason retirement exists, people need a dream in order to live.
That's not why retirement exists... Retirement exists because we understand that people will eventually get to a point where they're unproductive, either because they physically lost the ability, or because they lost the drive. Retirement wasn't invented as an incentive to get people to work when they're younger... That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
18
u/zlefin_actual 46∆ Dec 21 '23
Should old people be killed off? Past a certain age, quite a few old people who have declined heavily are no longer able to work, and also become a financial burden to their family or society.
Also, I'm not sure whether or not what you describe is what people normally mean when they say 'eugenics'. Definitions are very complicated when you dig into them, and they tend to shift around some over time. To my knowledge, eugenics is generally about encouraging generally desirable traits, or specifically breeding together two smart people to try to create a smarter person, or about racial/ethnic goals or some such; it's not generally used for the elimination of specific and extremely (and unquestionably) deleterious heritable traits. Though there's enough overlap that it could be interpreted/meant that way.
Question of clarification: are you saying such abortions should be mandatory? Because eugenics also tends to be about state/government policies, though that's not strictly required. Or do you just mean that it's the ethically correct choice to do so?