Eugenics offended.

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2021-10-01 Epub Date: 2021-12-15 DOI:10.1007/s40592-021-00145-1
Robert A Wilson
{"title":"Eugenics offended.","authors":"Robert A Wilson","doi":"10.1007/s40592-021-00145-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This commentary continues an exchange on eugenics in Monash Bioethics Review between (Anomaly in Defending Eugenics: From Cryptic Choice to Conscious Selection 35:24-35, 2018), (Wilson in Eugenics Undefended 37:68-75, 2019), and (Veit in Can 'Eugenics' be Defended? 39:60-67, 2021). The eponymous question, \"Can 'Eugenics' be Defended?\", is multiply ambiguous and does not receive a clear answer from Veit et al.. Despite their stated desire to move beyond mere semantics to matters of substance, Veit et al. concentrate on several uses of the term \"eugenics\" that pull in opposite directions. I argue, first, that (Veit in Can 'Eugenics' be Defended? 39:60-67, 2021) makes much the same error as does (Anomaly in Defending Eugenics: From Cryptic Choice to Conscious Selection 35:24-35, 2018) in characterizing eugenics; second, that the paper misunderstands the relationship between eugenics and enhancement; and third, that it distorts the views expressed in my \"Eugenics Undefended\".</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":"39 2","pages":"169-176"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-021-00145-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/12/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This commentary continues an exchange on eugenics in Monash Bioethics Review between (Anomaly in Defending Eugenics: From Cryptic Choice to Conscious Selection 35:24-35, 2018), (Wilson in Eugenics Undefended 37:68-75, 2019), and (Veit in Can 'Eugenics' be Defended? 39:60-67, 2021). The eponymous question, "Can 'Eugenics' be Defended?", is multiply ambiguous and does not receive a clear answer from Veit et al.. Despite their stated desire to move beyond mere semantics to matters of substance, Veit et al. concentrate on several uses of the term "eugenics" that pull in opposite directions. I argue, first, that (Veit in Can 'Eugenics' be Defended? 39:60-67, 2021) makes much the same error as does (Anomaly in Defending Eugenics: From Cryptic Choice to Conscious Selection 35:24-35, 2018) in characterizing eugenics; second, that the paper misunderstands the relationship between eugenics and enhancement; and third, that it distorts the views expressed in my "Eugenics Undefended".

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
优生学冒犯。
这篇评论继续了莫纳什生物伦理学评论中关于优生学的交流(捍卫优生学的异常:从隐式选择到有意识选择35:24-35,2018),(威尔逊在优生学不辩护37:68-75,2019)和(Veit在“优生学”可以辩护吗?39:60 - 67, 2021)。同名的问题,“‘优生学’可以辩护吗?”,是非常模棱两可的,并没有从Veit等人那里得到明确的答案。尽管Veit等人声称希望超越纯粹的语义学而关注实质问题,但他们专注于“优生学”一词的几种相反方向的用法。首先,我认为《优生学可以被辩护吗?》(39:60-67, 2021)在描述优生学时犯了与(捍卫优生学的异常:从神秘选择到有意识选择35:24-35,2018)相同的错误;其次,本文误解了优生学与强化的关系;第三,它扭曲了我在《不为优生学辩护》中表达的观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world. An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre. Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length. Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary
期刊最新文献
Health beyond biology: the extended health hypothesis and technology. Do androids dream of informed consent? The need to understand the ethical implications of experimentation on simulated beings. Zero-covid advocacy during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study of views on Twitter/X. The provision of abortion in Australia: service delivery as a bioethical concern. The immorality of bombing abortion clinics as proof that abortion is not murder.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1