What is a philosopher or philosophical structure similar to the nazi-like natural selection movement

Forums: Internet, Philosophy, Genocide, Nazi, Kill
Email this Topic • Print this Page

There's a ideology going around online that seems to be a combination of Natural Selection, Utilitarianism, and Nazi-like principles.

For example, some would say that killing the mentally retarded or disabled is okay, because they drain the economy and are annoyances to those belonging to a "superior" gene pool.

The same goes with killing the poor and uneducated, because it would be a "waste of resources" to try and help them.

This also applies to elderly people, if they are no longer "serving society" in any way.

I'd like to know if there's any philosophers or ethical or political structures that neatly wrap up this ideology and if there's any sound philosophical arguments posed against this?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 2 • Views: 3,459 • Replies: 23

No top replies

@Slaughtz,

This is the law of the jungle. But it was human caring that helped humans to dominate the world.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

Could not one argue that it is in humans caring for themselves that help us "dominate the world" and in these killings, they are actually caring for humanity as a whole?

In regards to it being the law of the jungle; I recall hearing (this is from an unreliable source, so I probably shouldn't mention it) that the ancient Egyptians had a similar philosophy, at least in regards to the killing of disabled children. I mention this because I doubt anyone could deny what advancements in technology were achieved by ancient Egypt. Because of this political structure and present ideologies, I doubt someone would classify them as primitive.

Of course, I am assuming that you intended your statement as an argument against this, when in reality yours could be one of any ethical stance. So my apologies if I misinterpreted.

1 Reply

@Slaughtz,

The Greeks and Romans did the same. They let disabled or deformed babies die by the sea and Vikings let young girls into the woods to die when things were tough. If it is your relatives you might think differently. Those with disabilities are not likely to mate so there is no cause for alarm regarding species degenerating. Look at Stephen Hawkings the foremost physicist of the day. By this Nazi like mindset he would be set for the furnace.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

To clear things up, just in case you were referring to me in regards to it being my relatives, I don't believe in this ideology (yet, at least) and I don't plan to.

With regard to that information about the Greeks, Romans, and Vikings; that is interesting and seems to only reinforce the idea that civilizations that advance the human position on Earth can obey these "laws of the jungle".

"If it is your relatives you might think differently."
I wouldn't doubt it that some would attempt to save their own family from such oppressive behaviors, but at the same time, they might be considered for execution themselves, for costing society that much more in resources by resisting what might be viewed as a "practical" ideology.

"Those with disabilities are not likely to mate so there is no cause for alarm regarding species degenerating."
I empirically agree, and it is a good point for not killing people for that reason alone.

"Look at Stephen Hawkings the foremost physicist of the day. By this Nazi like mindset, he would be set for the furnace"
This is true, and I've brought up this argument before. Let me present you with this person's response:

Stephen Hawking has already pulled more than enough weight to constitute him being given the right to live. Though, even if he was killed beforehand, someone else, who wasn't disabled, probably would have concocted the theories that he did eventually.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, that disabled people could be justifiably killed under this ideology just for wasting resources, no matter if they reproduce or not.

1 Reply

@Slaughtz,

You would be surprised how many people would be on the block. Sir Isaac Newton as a child was born smaller than usual and sickly. Albert Einstein was similarly an unremarkable child and considered retarded. They would have been in the chopping block. The Nazis lost as all their good scientists left. Wait till you are in an accident and then you would be next in line to further humankind by your disoposal.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

You are right, I am surprised; while for others reasons I am not. Those statements you make about such influential people being the ones who would've been on the "chopping block" are fairly convincing.

Of course, one could argue for the potential of a "normal" human being able to be just as influential as those who weren't considered "normal", but it's seeming to be a far stretch. The potential of any human being seems nearly limitless, no matter if they are disabled or not.

This is where utility might step in, though. If a disabled person, an injured person, or any person for that matter is deemed as having a low potential to utility ratio, they can be justifiably killed under this ideology. For example, if a person is so old now that they have a hard time remembering the simplest of things, no matter if they were Einstein or Newton, they could be killed for wasting resources. Humans would have already extracted all the information they need from the individual.

Although, putting it in this terms, I see a slowing in human advancement as people withhold information just to release it later as they "answer" to what they have done for society since the last time they were required to present evidence that they are beneficial. I digress though, and stop myself from continuing into a ramble.

1 Reply

@Slaughtz,

Eugenics was started by a second class scientist, Sir Francis Galton, who started a project to find geniuses using IQ tests. It failed. His ideas on eugenics are just as flawed as it led to Hitler's Nazism and a war. You are just rehashing rubbish unless you want to restart a war.

0 Replies

Trying to seek out a superior race by killing those who seem retarded or average will essentially kill off the potential genius that may be born to that very couple.

Likewise, many diseases and other biological ailments doesn't discriminate based on intelligence.

When anybody believes they are superior, it's because they are ignorant and doesn't understand geneology, and how average people can turn into vicious monsters if given the opportunity. There were studies done at Stanford and Yale that proved this thesis.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

That is interesting. Here was Hitler thinking of eliminating Jews and Africans but his genetic signature showed he was from those people very prople.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

"Trying to seek out a superior race by killing those who seem retarded or average will essentially kill off the potential genius that may be born to that very couple."
Aye, the argument of potentiality is a very, very relevant one and was mentioned before, I believe.

"Likewise, many diseases and other biological ailments doesn't discriminate based on intelligence."
I particularly enjoy this argument, as I've thought of it myself after having taken a intro. to biology course a couple semesters ago. With a lack of genetic diversity, under different and unexpected conditions, the human race may die off. There may be some strange disease introduced to the human populace that doesn't effect those with autism or any other sort of disability. However, it hasn't quite convinced me enough in the past; but reconsidering it now that another has stated it, I'm gaining a bit of confidence in its credibility.

"When anybody believes they are superior, it's because they are ignorant and doesn't understand geneology, ..."
I think genealogy is the study of family trees? Perhaps you meant genetics? (Not the same as eugenics, I don't think) I'm curious as to where the knowledge of genealogy would fit in.

"... and how average people can turn into vicious monsters if given the opportunity. There were studies done at Stanford and Yale that proved this thesis."
I don't understand as well how that average people being able to turn into vicious monsters, if given the opportunity, argues against the ideology I'm presenting. Would you mind elaborating?

2 Replies

@Slaughtz,

Hitler was by no means extraordinary. He was a very pedestrian person and would you not declare he was a monster? John Wayne Gacy was an ordinary person yet he was a monster. Stalin was ordinary and he was a monster because he had nothing special that people want or thought he was an alpha male. He was so insecure that he had purges thru out his reign. There are many examples and you should do some research. Philosophy without knowledge is junk.

1 Reply

@Slaughtz,

You wrote:

Quote:

"When anybody believes they are superior, it's because they are ignorant and doesn't understand geneology, ..."
I think genealogy is the study of family trees? Perhaps you meant genetics? (Not the same as eugenics, I don't think) I'm curious as to where the knowledge of genealogy would fit in.

Yes, geneology is the study of family history. I'm making the simple assumption that all families have a "ghost" in their backgrounds. By ghost, I mean bad blood, disease, psychosis, suicide, killing of innocents, and most things we deem as abnormal or unwanted.

In my family, I was able to go back only three generations, because that's the only record that the city government had of our family in Japan. Both our great-grandfather and great,great, grandfather were of samurai class. Our grandfather moved to Hawaii with his new wife in 1893-1894, and worked in agriculture. All of my father's siblings were born in Hawaii, and several of them in their teens moved to California to find work. My aunt stayed in Hawaii, and also had a large family. I met one of my cousins from that family just last weekend, because he's a Cal Bear fan, and attends their games in Berkeley, so we met near SFO for dinner to chat and get to know each other. My wife joined us. We plan to meet again in October.

I'm sure there are some interesting background in our family tree, but we'll never know. I was surprised that the Hiroshima government still had family records.

People wouldn't be so quick to judge others if they knew their own family had the same mental problems they are talking against.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

Hitler, Stalin, and Gacy are a separate subject.

Although Hitler is related to Nazism, his history and the other things about him on a personal level are not related to the principals that are presented in this ideology. The only way I can see these relating is by showing historically that people who followed this line of thought weren't anything extraordinary or might even be hypocritical. Even then, these people do not fully or directly represent the ideology that has been expressed, what seems exclusively online.

I apologize if there is a connection with these people to the ideology that's being presented that I'm missing. I'd like you to point it out more clearly if there is one.

0 Replies

@Slaughtz,

Slaughtz wrote:

There's a ideology going around online that seems to be a combination of Natural Selection, Utilitarianism, and Nazi-like principles.

For example, some would say that killing the mentally retarded or disabled is okay, because they drain the economy and are annoyances to those belonging to a "superior" gene pool.

The same goes with killing the poor and uneducated, because it would be a "waste of resources" to try and help them.

This also applies to elderly people, if they are no longer "serving society" in any way.

I'd like to know if there's any philosophers or ethical or political structures that neatly wrap up this ideology and if there's any sound philosophical arguments posed against this?

What are your sources on this "idealology going around online"?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Ah, thank you for clarifying and elaborating on the connection. You presented what I believe to be a strong argument against Genocide.

Although, while it may incite some sympathy amongst family members to realize that they have an imperfect family tree; it does not guarantee sympathy of the ideology, which itself would probably be enforced through a "cold" manner that wouldn't regard the feelings of anyone.

Perhaps I should take a moment to outline the basic arguments of the ideology I'm talking about:
1) Those who do not have favorable genetic traits should not be allowed to reproduce and/or should be killed.
2) Those who strain society economically or in any other way should be killed. (This is so that there are more resources left for those who make more practical and selfless use of their lives, rather than just surviving and living comfortably.)

Under this ideology, you're born into the world with an obligation to be useful to the advancement of humans, in any practical and useful field.

From what I've gathered in the responses to this, the first principal is not as much of a problem as the second.

1 Reply

@thack45,

My question is basically asking for "sauces". If you have any, feel free to post some.

This "idealology" seems to be most commonly used by trolls.

However, you can see that I've seriously considered the view, no matter if those who fabricate it may not believe it themselves.

0 Replies

@Slaughtz,

They are not principles as you seem to think they are. They are psychotic ideas that follows the tenet of people like Hitler and some other tyrants of history.

Making yourself feel superior to those with handicaps only shows your inability to have compassion for your fellow man.

Your kind of thinking belongs in the psycho ward.

1 Reply

@Slaughtz,

Slaughtz wrote:

There's a ideology going around online that seems to be a combination of Natural Selection, Utilitarianism, and Nazi-like principles.

For example, some would say that killing the mentally retarded or disabled is okay, because they drain the economy and are annoyances to those belonging to a "superior" gene pool.

The same goes with killing the poor and uneducated, because it would be a "waste of resources" to try and help them.

This also applies to elderly people, if they are no longer "serving society" in any way.

I'd like to know if there's any philosophers or ethical or political structures that neatly wrap up this ideology and if there's any sound philosophical arguments posed against this?

I look at it this way ;

there is NO perfect energy in , equals energy out

there is NO perfection in biology either

the more you control the gene pool the narrower its ability to survive becomes

the poor and uneducated are a pool of Human brilliance we so far have not tapped into

elderly have wisdom to be dwelled upon , for consideration of our actions in the future

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

"They are not principles as you seem to think they are."
The world "principle" may very well be the wrong word to use in referring to the ideas of the ideology.

"They are psychotic ideas that follows the tenet of people like Hitler and some other tyrants of history."
I do not see how lack of compassion necessitates a person being psychotic. Is there a specific type of psychosis you are referring to that underlies these ideas, or is it just your general opinion that these ideas are sick? If that were the case, my opinions would be in agreement with yours. I find this ideology to be disturbing, heartless, and sick. Personal opinion isn't philosophy, though.

"Making yourself feel superior to those with handicaps only shows your inability to have compassion for your fellow man." This ideology has little to do with one making themselves feel superior to someone because of them having a disability. This has mostly to do with a person not being useful to society as a whole, and therefor they are inferior to those who are useful.

"Your kind of thinking belongs in the psycho ward."
"My" kind of thinking? What type of thinking is that? I'm not in a position, being the one who has the type of thinking that I have, to be able to identify the thinking that I have. Could you please elaborate on the problems with it? If it is not with my personal thinking, but with the thinking of the ideology, then I'd like to say that I don't submit myself to it's thinking, I only have an understanding of it.

I am trying my best to be unbiased in this. Just because I can argue points for it, and I do argue its points, it does not mean I believe it.

0 Replies

What is a philosopher or philosophical structure similar to the nazi-like natural selection movement

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know