{"title":"优生学冒犯。","authors":"Robert A Wilson","doi":"10.1007/s40592-021-00145-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This commentary continues an exchange on eugenics in Monash Bioethics Review between (Anomaly in Defending Eugenics: From Cryptic Choice to Conscious Selection 35:24-35, 2018), (Wilson in Eugenics Undefended 37:68-75, 2019), and (Veit in Can 'Eugenics' be Defended? 39:60-67, 2021). The eponymous question, \"Can 'Eugenics' be Defended?\", is multiply ambiguous and does not receive a clear answer from Veit et al.. Despite their stated desire to move beyond mere semantics to matters of substance, Veit et al. concentrate on several uses of the term \"eugenics\" that pull in opposite directions. I argue, first, that (Veit in Can 'Eugenics' be Defended? 39:60-67, 2021) makes much the same error as does (Anomaly in Defending Eugenics: From Cryptic Choice to Conscious Selection 35:24-35, 2018) in characterizing eugenics; second, that the paper misunderstands the relationship between eugenics and enhancement; and third, that it distorts the views expressed in my \"Eugenics Undefended\".</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":"39 2","pages":"169-176"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Eugenics offended.\",\"authors\":\"Robert A Wilson\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40592-021-00145-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This commentary continues an exchange on eugenics in Monash Bioethics Review between (Anomaly in Defending Eugenics: From Cryptic Choice to Conscious Selection 35:24-35, 2018), (Wilson in Eugenics Undefended 37:68-75, 2019), and (Veit in Can 'Eugenics' be Defended? 39:60-67, 2021). The eponymous question, \\\"Can 'Eugenics' be Defended?\\\", is multiply ambiguous and does not receive a clear answer from Veit et al.. Despite their stated desire to move beyond mere semantics to matters of substance, Veit et al. concentrate on several uses of the term \\\"eugenics\\\" that pull in opposite directions. I argue, first, that (Veit in Can 'Eugenics' be Defended? 39:60-67, 2021) makes much the same error as does (Anomaly in Defending Eugenics: From Cryptic Choice to Conscious Selection 35:24-35, 2018) in characterizing eugenics; second, that the paper misunderstands the relationship between eugenics and enhancement; and third, that it distorts the views expressed in my \\\"Eugenics Undefended\\\".</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43628,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Monash Bioethics Review\",\"volume\":\"39 2\",\"pages\":\"169-176\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Monash Bioethics Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-021-00145-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/12/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-021-00145-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/12/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
This commentary continues an exchange on eugenics in Monash Bioethics Review between (Anomaly in Defending Eugenics: From Cryptic Choice to Conscious Selection 35:24-35, 2018), (Wilson in Eugenics Undefended 37:68-75, 2019), and (Veit in Can 'Eugenics' be Defended? 39:60-67, 2021). The eponymous question, "Can 'Eugenics' be Defended?", is multiply ambiguous and does not receive a clear answer from Veit et al.. Despite their stated desire to move beyond mere semantics to matters of substance, Veit et al. concentrate on several uses of the term "eugenics" that pull in opposite directions. I argue, first, that (Veit in Can 'Eugenics' be Defended? 39:60-67, 2021) makes much the same error as does (Anomaly in Defending Eugenics: From Cryptic Choice to Conscious Selection 35:24-35, 2018) in characterizing eugenics; second, that the paper misunderstands the relationship between eugenics and enhancement; and third, that it distorts the views expressed in my "Eugenics Undefended".
期刊介绍：
Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world.
An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance.
Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications.
One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre.
Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length.
Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
