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.
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?
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.
Thank you