The First Step Of The Eugenics Movement

When Darwin first revealed his theory of evolution, soon-to-be eugenicists were given an entirely new world view (Martinez). They realized that humans are not exempt from the forces of natural selection, and developed methods that would employ it to improve the human condition, essentially creating a new field of study. Morally speaking, in this situation, the newly born field of Eugenics can be considered a fresh, never before seen landscape with no defining features. By working as Eugenicists, individuals begin to survey their new ethical surroundings and make the first tentative decisions concerning it. This is the first step of the Moral Progress Theory (Stich). It states, that when humans are presented with an entirely new situation they
study it, make decisions about it, and revise their decisions over time as new facts are learned. This theory supposedly applies to all individuals in the world as it relates to humanity’s innate moral modules.
It culminates in the understanding that humans, over time, will all approach the same moral truth concerning the situation they are faced with (Stich). Assuming this theory is true, the birth and apparent death of the Eugenics Movement can be explained in relatively simple historic terms. In other words, historic events and societal changes are introduced as new facts to be considered and can be used to explain the moral path Eugenics has followed.
Eugenics started out in Britain, following Darwin’s groundbreaking work. Around this time science was conducted and supported with statistical and quantitative evidence; to be a credible scientist, data needed to support the claim (Martinez). Francis Galton, being the father of several statistical methods, naturally employed them in his fledgling examination of human inheritance patterns. Immediately, Eugenics suffers from a bias towards using statistical evidence to support its claims, also explaining how it chronically suffers from poor research practices. Again, merit at the time was based heavily upon the data, and ostensibly less on the substance of the work (Martinez). When the movement finally reached America, it was taken up with great zeal. Wealthy American families funded the creation of the Cold Spring
Harbor Laboratory for Eugenic Research, headed by Charles Davenport the leader of the United States Eugenics Movement (Martinez). Immigration was a concurrent and increasingly large concern for Americans in the 1900’s. Jobs were already scarce and there was fear that immigrants would take work from needy Americans (Norrgard). So when eugenicists like Lewis Terman began declaring that according to intelligence tests immigrants were “mentally defective” and that they should not be allowed into the country to preserve “superior” American genes, the public displayed their support for likely the wrong reasons (Martinez). In these initial instances, eugenics is placed far to the side of moral good. The first Eugenics Records Office in Britain declared their mission to be to “improve the natural, physical, mental, and temperamental qualities of the human family” (Norrgard). But according to Moral Progress Theory, initial judgements are rarely correct. Groups of individuals tend to go through several iterations of their beliefs before coming to an ultimate conclusion. The initial favor towards the Eugenics Movement could be attributed to the variety of aforementioned favorable circumstances. Were eugenics introduced to before Darwin’s theory it might not have been as well received. What Moral Progress Theory then suggests is that perhaps the idea that eugenics is a morally permissible practice is incorrect.
While eugenics experienced extremely good reception for the earlier half of the 20th century two enormously impactful events in the latter half eliminated a significant portion of the public approval.
After witnessing the American movement, German scientists adopted Eugenic principles for use in their own country. Following World War I, the German economy was flagging and eugenics was employed in attempts to assist the state (Martinez). Prior to the rise of the Nazi Party, policies called for the involuntary euthanasia of individuals known as lebensunwertes or “lives not worthy of life” who suffered from incurable mental or physical diseases (Goering). With the advent of World War II, eugenics became the justification for the Nazi party’s extremist policies. In a show of maximal Negative Eugenics, Nazis would enforce sterilization, euthanasia labeled as “mercy killing”, concentration camps, and overall genocide (Martinez). Seeing as how the United States fought with Germany in this conflict and witnessed first-hand the atrocities committed in pursuit of an Aryan race, eugenics quickly fell into the realm of unethical practices. The American Eugenics Society even changed their name to the Society for the Study of Social Biology following the war (Goering). Moral Progress theory suggests that World War II added an additional fact to the Eugenics Movement, and a new perspective was added to humanity’s understanding of the field’s moral value in consequence. It became less
acceptable because it became apparent that it could result in terrible violence and genocide. Furthermore, just before the beginning of World War II, the Great Depression was plaguing America. Public opinion of eugenics was dying down. It can be inferred that because of the Great Depression, a large portion of Americans could suddenly qualify as “unfit” by eugenic standards. The Eugenic movement had a penchant for reifying non-genetic traits (Allen) such as pauperism, or poverty (Martinez) in attempts to create the best human possible. That being said, the population’s sudden loss of interest and support for the Eugenic movement could be explained by their realization, granted by the Great Depression, that they could become “unfit” according to eugenics at any time. With the addition of this fact, humanity suddenly had another new fact concerning the moral worth of eugenics and adjusted their view of it accordingly. This marked the end point of the Eugenics Movement as people became aware that eugenics as a social idea may not be the most morally acceptable.
Despite the enormous loss of interest in the wake of World War II and the Great Depression, eugenics did not die. Moral Progress Theory says that humanity is constantly making adjustments to judgements concerning a situation, and that its judgements slowly converge and become more accurate (Stich). While the atrocities and loss of public opinion of eugenics decreased the amount of attention given to the idea, it is still being thought about. Technology has made great advances leading up to the present and Eugenics has taken on a new name, Euphenics (Martinez). It is now focused on utilizing advanced medicine and genetic intervention to test for genetic disorders in the womb and allow for superior parental planning. This is an accepted practice and is actually encouraged to provide healthy offspring, though there is some controversy surrounding the ethical nature of more invasive procedures (Goering). Eugenics is continuing to change in accordance to the Moral Progress theory; new facts are being received and humanity is adjusting its judgements. The ultimate moral truth concerning eugenics may be many new facts and even more adjustments away, but from its humble beginnings as a British biologist’s response to Darwin’s theory, eugenics and its history has been led by the Moral Progress Theory the entire way.