The term eugenics derives from the Greek language, eugenics translates to “good genes” in Greek. Eugenics is the controlling of the reproduction of a society to gain desirable traits or eliminate undesirable traits. Rawl’s Contract Theory refers to a social contract among the individuals involved for mutual advantage and follows principle in which everyone agrees to. Everyone must agree on a decision before the event occurs behind a “veil of ignorance.” According to Rawl’s Contract Theory, or contractarianism, everyone should receive equal opportunities, no matter what race or ethnicity they belong to. Eugenics can be evaluated by Rawl’s Contract Theory.
According to Rawl’s Contract Theory, using eugenics on society would be morally permissible. …show more content…
The first problem arises in the moral theory of Rawl’s Contract Theory. In the moral theory, everyone should be entitled to equal benefits. However, not everyone in today’s society should receive equal benefits, such as murderers, rapists and other considerably wrong human beings. The use of screening reproduction on a population, would be very similar to Nazi, Germany. Adolf Hitler tried creating a pure race by wiping out the Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals. He believed the perfect or pure race was someone with blonde hair and blue eyes. This idea of a pure race led to horrible prejudices against these groups and races of people. The similar thing would occur to the population if eugenics was involved. This would lead to discrimination against minority groups, specifically the disabled and diseased. Thus, there would be social disadvantages. Another problem with Rawl’s Contract Theory is everyone having to agree on one decision. In the moral theory, everyone that is involved needs to agree on one outcome. This would presumably be very difficult with so many people involved in the decision. All the people involved would have very different opinions and beliefs, furthermore, when people already have their opinions set, it is hard to change their mind. Eugenics in itself is completely wrong and messed up. The controversial case leads to the assumption that people …show more content…
Eugenics would get rid of the minority groups so therefore, there would no longer be any discrimination on a specific grouping of people, leading to equal opportunities and benefits for everyone involved. Eugenics could also help create more jobs. Screening and controlling of reproduction would generate there being a greater demand for people with a degree in genetic engineering, and a need for people to do genetic testing. Also, Nazi Germany is very much different than eugenics. Hitler killed many people, controlling and screening reproduction would not involve killing the generation already born. Eugenics would involve screening couples that would want or are thinking about having a baby. Furthermore, the genetic test would decide whether the couple would be able to have a baby, depending if they carry genetic diseases or mutations. Also, the testing determines the chance of the baby having disabilities. Examining the carrier couple case again, if their baby did have the disease, they would have to pay financially and depending on the disease, also mentally. Financially, they would not have the same opportunities as others. It would be easier and better to adopt or not have a baby at all. There would be equal opportunities given to the couple, and should they choose to adopt, the adopted baby would be given equal opportunities like any other
According to Rawl’s Contract Theory, using eugenics on society would be morally permissible. …show more content…
The first problem arises in the moral theory of Rawl’s Contract Theory. In the moral theory, everyone should be entitled to equal benefits. However, not everyone in today’s society should receive equal benefits, such as murderers, rapists and other considerably wrong human beings. The use of screening reproduction on a population, would be very similar to Nazi, Germany. Adolf Hitler tried creating a pure race by wiping out the Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals. He believed the perfect or pure race was someone with blonde hair and blue eyes. This idea of a pure race led to horrible prejudices against these groups and races of people. The similar thing would occur to the population if eugenics was involved. This would lead to discrimination against minority groups, specifically the disabled and diseased. Thus, there would be social disadvantages. Another problem with Rawl’s Contract Theory is everyone having to agree on one decision. In the moral theory, everyone that is involved needs to agree on one outcome. This would presumably be very difficult with so many people involved in the decision. All the people involved would have very different opinions and beliefs, furthermore, when people already have their opinions set, it is hard to change their mind. Eugenics in itself is completely wrong and messed up. The controversial case leads to the assumption that people …show more content…
Eugenics would get rid of the minority groups so therefore, there would no longer be any discrimination on a specific grouping of people, leading to equal opportunities and benefits for everyone involved. Eugenics could also help create more jobs. Screening and controlling of reproduction would generate there being a greater demand for people with a degree in genetic engineering, and a need for people to do genetic testing. Also, Nazi Germany is very much different than eugenics. Hitler killed many people, controlling and screening reproduction would not involve killing the generation already born. Eugenics would involve screening couples that would want or are thinking about having a baby. Furthermore, the genetic test would decide whether the couple would be able to have a baby, depending if they carry genetic diseases or mutations. Also, the testing determines the chance of the baby having disabilities. Examining the carrier couple case again, if their baby did have the disease, they would have to pay financially and depending on the disease, also mentally. Financially, they would not have the same opportunities as others. It would be easier and better to adopt or not have a baby at all. There would be equal opportunities given to the couple, and should they choose to adopt, the adopted baby would be given equal opportunities like any other