| |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > It's just completely outside of today's Overton window Never heard it expressed like that, but I guess you could apply it to tons of stuff? > Lobotomy is not scientifically unsound, as aswegs8 proves, it's just completely outside of today's Overton window. | | |
| ▲ | CalRobert an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I mean, if we wanted every human on Earth to be over 6' tall, we could just cull the short ones (or stop them from reproducing), and this is scientifically valid, but, of course, evil. As far as lobotomy, I don't know, but it seems to be widely discredited inasmuch as it didn't achieve its aims (or if it did, the aims themselves were highly questionable) Given the title, lobotomy is an apt reference "The originator of the procedure, Portuguese neurologist António Egas Moniz, shared the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine of 1949 for the "discovery of the therapeutic value of leucotomy in certain psychoses"," - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy | |
| ▲ | everdrive an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well in fairness so long as you describe the goal as "largely destroying the frontal cortex and all the functions that go along with it," then lobotomy is incredibly sound. |
| |
| ▲ | cestith 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It is ethically unsound. | | |
| ▲ | swat535 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | "Ethics" is subjective, there is no such thing as an objective ethics (unless you are religious). This is why thought experiments like the Trolley problems don't have a simple answer.. and they get even more complex with variations of the thought experiment. | |
| ▲ | lmf4lol an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | are ethics man-made or „given“ to us by god, the watchmaker or the universe? | | |
| ▲ | jonhohle 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Eugenics rejects the idea that all are created equal. Equality is supported by both Judeo-Christian theology and secular enlightenment philosophy. I can think of little modern philosophy more regressive than the idea that a self-appointed superior can determine that another is inferior to the point that they (or their offspring) should be culled from existence. Eugenics and racism have been intertwined since the beginning and with a modern twist continue to target vulnerable populations. | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | For the most part they come out of emotions that evolution found useful for procreation (love, fear, anger), then extrapolated to people living in small groups, then to larger societies after the invention of agriculture via the "iterated prisoners dilemma". | |
| ▲ | SiempreViernes an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think that in this context it's more useful to pose the question in there other direction: which moral systems declare that the slave trade and the disenfranchisement of persons on the basis of skin colour is not ok? | |
| ▲ | cestith an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ethics is a field of study. I know some on this site loathe the humanities, but those same often don’t mind using language, psychology, and sociology to make a buck. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ajross an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Oooph. I'm going to be charitable and make a (horrifying) steelman point for you: Eugenics can be understood as a subset of the ideas of plant and animal breeding that have been practiced for centuries. Those are scientifically sound, thus the idea that humans can be bred for certain traits should be too. THAT SAID, "Eugenics" as espoused and understood over the past two centuries isn't that at all. It's 100%, every time, a pretty face for racism. Human social and ancestry divisions ARE NOT the product of deliberate selection, never have been, and any attempt to conflate the ideas is, yeah, pretty fucking unsound. And horrifying. | |
| ▲ | dyauspitr an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It is unsound because “better” is completely subjective and up to the definer. There’s no objective, scientific truth there. |
|
