It is wrong when it tends otherwise." He supports the idea from two perspectives. First from the utilitarian point of view, he explains that not attempting to conserve wild species jeopardizes resources that humans depend on. The second view, the bio centric position, he emphasizes that wild species have an 'inherent right to exist. I think that to him there are just no other options and he does not want readers to begin to consider not intervening in the lives of wild animals in order to conserve them.
Just because one may clone an animal doesn’t make any difference as one was to clone a human being. You may think that cloning animals will save today’s world from hunger, well guess what? You’re wrong. Cloning an animal may even kill a person’s life by the effect of the genetic makeup used. Even with human cloning for
Eugenics was the human equivalent of selective animal and plant breeding. Eugenics was first embraced as a scientific means of halting the stream of impoverished immigrants who came to the United States between 1880 and 1914. These new immigrants arrived principally from eastern and southern Europe, the Balkans, and Russia. They were ethnically and culturally different from earlier waves of foreigners, who had migrated mostly from the countries of western Europe such as Germany, England, Ireland, and Scotland. Many Americans thought these new immigrants were “defective”—less intelligent, more radical, and willing to work for low wages (Figure E4.2).
During the time Hitler was coming to power and right before, the idea of Eugenics in Germany was spreading. “Scientists dreamed of a perfect human being by changing the genetic makeup of the population.” Even before the Nazi party was formed they already had these ideas in mind and once Hitler starting supporting the idea the results were horrific. Just like in America the Germans believed that the “unfit” were reproducing while the “fit” generation was using birth control and having kids later bringing down the overall population. Similarly to the United States the government warned about mixing races and was afraid that the population was becoming worse and something had to be done. Surgical Sterilization was another parallel to prevent the spreading of bad genes although the practice didn’t gain as much support as it had in other countries around the globe.
-1How Did Darwinism Influence Theories of Race in the Nineteenth Century? Charles Darwin’s work and theories on evolution, most notably in his magnum opus On the Origin of the Species, had a profound effect on the scientific community during the nineteenth century. Darwin altered views on race in a variety of ways, some negative and some positive but he provided the first contentious argument to explain variety within human characteristics that is still maintained today. His theories of evolution were controversial and influenced the ideas of others that purposefully contradicted his own. Nott and Gliddon’s work for example specifically counters Darwin’s theories concerning race but we now know theirs to be fiction.1 The work of Sir Francis Galton, Herbert Spencer and Ernst Heackel was directly influenced by Darwin, hence a number of their theories are now referred to as Social Darwinism, though this has become a somewhat derogatory term.2 Theories descended from Darwinism such as eugenics, embryology and the “survival of the fittest” have been used both to support and dismiss racist principles, such as the justification of the slave trade.3 It must be acknowledged that Darwin’s influence transcended political and ethical arguments.
Monasteries were destroyed, their contents and wealth confiscated (& given to the king ) & those who opposed this were hanged. Henry did this to try to reduce the power of the pope. At the time Henry thought he was right to do this. However, many people opposed Henry’s actions due to there religious beliefs. Looking back it is clear there was evidence supporting & opposing the decision to close the monasteries.
Despite this, his synderesis rule consequently cannot be applied to all situations when dealing with issues concerning the environment as it is impossible to ‘avoid evil’ completely. When dealing with an issue such as pollution for example, a follower of natural law could interpret it as evil as it contributes to the destruction of God’s creation, and also causing harm to some humans in the form of asthma. The theory would eradicate pollution altogether, though this is very unrealistic as pollution has to be committed in some degree in order for the world to function as it does today. Therefore natural law is of no use when dealing with issues concerning the environment due to the fact that its arguments cannot be applied to every situation. A further way in which natural law
The 1919 treaty of Versailles required Germany to pay war reperation to France. These reperations made the people of Germany angry at the treaty and Hitler was able to manipulate and use this by promising not to pay them thereby gaining popularity. Another factor of the treaty of Versailles is the war guilt cause. This required Germany to take full responsibility for world war 1. Hitler instead blamed many others, mainly the Wemiar and the Jews, this also gained popularity with the people of Germany.
The eugenics movement could actually do way more harm to human evolution and the human race than good. Before World War II, Hitler began to research American eugenics as a way to justify his anti-Semitism and racism. He was able to get more people to believe in his ideals by telling them that it was all based on science. In 1939, Hitler approved the Aktion T-4 program, which authorized certain doctors and officials to perform “mercy deaths” by euthanasia on those who the state said were unworthy of life. The type of people the scientists of the eugenics movement wanted to create were tall, strong, and talented beings, with blond hair and blue eyes.
Whether or not Plato actually believes in eugenics or not, I believe his dialog is to get the reader thinking on the issues that he argues for. This essay will be doing exactly that, evaluating the argument of eugenics and how it can apply and affect modern Christian values. Eugenics and Euthanasia Eugenics is a modern term for the idea of breeding the perfect human. It was coined by Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin. Francis wanted to apply Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution to human beings.2 Using this train of thought, one can reasonably come to the conclusion that human kind can be improved if we bred out bad genes in order to fill future generations with a strong, if not perfect gene pool.