On Removing the Barrier to a Civilized Discussion of Eugenics
Finnie(condensed from a paper given at an academic conference in 1999)
To begin to talk about eugenics - or any other subject that touches upon human nature - it is necessary to shed the straitjackets of ideology. At this time one is not allowed to argue the merits of eugenics, but is forced to argue the merits of having a value system at all. Those who would discuss genetics today find themselves having to argue against a mentality that is, on principle, opposed to the very idea of objectively-real values. Eugenics, with its fundamental assertion of genetic inequality and of the desirability of encouraging some people to breed and discouraging others, raises a double alarm in the contemporary mind. The first alarm sounds because of a perceived attack upon the value of equality -the supreme value of the political pseudoreligion of the age, for which I have coined the term "equalitarianism."The alarm also rings on a philosophic level. The absolute value-neutrality to which secularism aspires resents the implication that anything is better than anything else. Both aspects of this alarm (genetic inequality and value inequality) imply a hierarchy of values, something that equalitarianism cannot tolerate.
The equalitarian ideology that dominates public discourse in the U.S. blocks a free and open discussion of eugenics, and even tries to prevent any consideration of a genetic basis for human differences. Of course, discussion is also dampened by revulsion against the horrors of Nazism, which hijacked the label of eugenics, and so cast disrepute upon it.
As regards human behavior, equalitarianism allows only environmental factors, not hereditary ones. All problems are thought to be solvable through the application of social pressure, indoctrinating the population in political correctness. Rousseau is the father of this kind of social revolutionism. In the Rousseauist state, the sovereign has the right to force the civil religion" on the individual. Equalitarianism is a one-sided ideology, not at all synonymous with egalitarianism.
My position is that the only rescue from narrow ideologies (of either the equalitarian or racist kind) is a recognition of the fact that both heredity and environment are important causative factors, and that there is a third element that eludes the potentially deterministic controls of heredity and environment (to be discussed below under "Causation").Rousseauism
Rousseau is the godfather of the resentment-based utopianism and revolutionism that gave birth to that disastrous pseudoreligion that has afflicted western culture for the last two centuries, Marxism. Yet the philosophic roots of this form of social tyranny lie in Rousseau's profoundly negative opinion of society, yet he has a fervent religious sentimentality about the purity of the human heart. For Rousseau, society was to blame for all inequality and injustice. The cardinal sin is that society has "deviated from the state of nature."[1] "Inequality [was] almost non-existent among men in the state of nature.... It is iron and corn, which have civilized men, and ruined mankind."[2] Some examples of his fractured logic are:
man is innocent and free, but the association of men in society is the source of all evil;society is utterly depraved, yet it may respond intelligently to the summons to moral regeneration, and if it embraces Rousseau's ideas, will even embody the gospel of Christ;social coercion is evil . . . but society may coerce men into worthy social behavior. He writes, "the sovereign may banish from the State whoever does not believe" the principles of the civil religion.[3]
Rousseau's Christian-flavored religion, then, is profoundly unbiblical, while his socialism is hostile to all social formations except those he would imagine. Occasionally he gives honest expression to his hostility to Christianity. "A society of true Christians would no longer be a society of men" because of Christianity's pacifism and other-worldliness. "Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. Its spirit is too favorable to tyranny for the latter not to profit by it always. True Christians are made to be slaves."[4] Here we can see both Nietzsche and Marx glimmering in Rousseau's eye! Would that we could go back in time and warn Europe not to be seduced by this man!
His central revolt is against a biblical God. "The grandest ideas of the Divine nature come to us from reason only. . . . Conscience never deceives us. . . . The service God requires is of the heart. . . . With regard to revelation . . . I neither accept nor reject it, I only reject all obligation to be convinced of its truth."[5] Here he shows his hand. If one believes in a revelation from God, one cannot be neutral about its messages. It seems that the highest reality for Rousseau is "the heart," not God.
Nazism was largely a revolt against the Rousseauist milieu in Europe. In practice, both Marxism and Nazism have been profoundly anti-eugenic, notwithstanding that Nazis covered themselves with eugenic rhetoric while Marxists have repudiated it. Both have engaged in cephalocide: the killing of brains, that is, the systematic repression of independent thinkers and spiritual leaders. I focus in this paper upon left wing ideology not because it is more wrong than right-wing ideology but because the Academy in America has been such a shameless defender of it.
According to Scheler, the psychological force behind Rousseau's humanitarianism is ressentiment.[6] "Humanitarian... 'love of mankind'...levels to uniformity all the objective value-differences between man and man.... obliterating the unique God-ordained character of each individual, class, race or nation in favour of a homogenized world-pure of mankind. Once the common reference of all men to God is denied, and with it the final, deepest and most effective interconnection of souls, their link in and through God, it is impossible to go on assuming any hierarchy of values."[7]
The Religious Meaning of Equality
American ideology glorifies Equality, which has accelerated now to the point where it has generated a new religion: equalitarianism, which confuses spirit with matter. The saying, "all men are created equal" is true in two respects, that all persons are all equally the children of God, and that each should be equally protected by law. The saying was never meant to affirm that all people are equal in character, insight, or any of their abilities.
The central spiritual truth of equality-that all are equally invited into membership in the family of God-was communicated in the parables of Jesus and the letters of Paul. The political truth was communicated by Thomas Jefferson and his allies. As with many thinkers of his time, Jefferson believed in a unity of principles governing the material, intellectual and spiritual realms, and called this unity of principles "nature," and so spoke of equality rooted in "nature and nature's God." It would not have served his purpose to make a distinction between the equality that exists on the spirit-potential level and the inequality that prevails on all levels of actuality. Likewise today, those who make equality an absolute are failing to distinguish between spiritual and material realities, and between potentials and actuals.
Causation, Ethics, and Ideology
The origins and causes of human behavior can be grouped into three realms: environmental influence, hereditary endowment, and spirit-identification. Mature philosophy recognizes the influences of heredity, environment, and the mysteriously creative third ingredient, the only area where human will is partially free. These three influences culminate in work, wedlock, and worship, which are concerned with temporal, biological, and spiritual survival. All three involve a process of selection. Society, too, has selective prerogatives, and a stake in restricting irresponsible parenting.
In the absence of conscious eugenic principles and constraints, unconscious ones develop. One of the most obvious is the withholding of rights of marital cohabitation from incarcerated felons. It tends to be conceived in terms of punishment, but the unconscious motivation was eugenic. Unconscious eugenic constraints, however, are harsh and even cruel. A more enlightened viewpoint would make the eugenic notion conscious, but eliminate cruelty; the restriction on procreation would stand, while allowing felons to experience marital intimacy.
What nature or human nature used to regulate with infamous harshness, conscious and far-sighted social values must now regulate intelligently. Procreation was formerly a duty; in America currently it is thought of as an absolute right. A more civilized viewpoint is that it is a privilege accompanied by supreme responsibility. Only the ethics of civilization can replace the law of the jungle.
Balanced philosophy must recognize the threefold causation. Only a recognition of spirituality can prevent a decline into ideologies of absolute environmental or racial determinism. Only spirituality allows an alternative to ideological extremism.
Overrapid material change, anarchy among nations, and the scourge of thoughtless procreation are combining to destabilize societies. But there is hope for civilization if advancing social ethics can affect the process of childrearing. But this is undermined by philosophic distortion.
We should approach eugenics only through a mature philosophy that recognizes the influences of nature, nurture, and eternity. The last ingredient is the domain of religion, and governments should neither advocate nor oppress any religious party. Academics should not deny the existence of spirit or of eternity, for if they do, they are no defense against genetic or environmental determinists. All value distortions are dualistic, choosing one kind of determinism and condemning the other. Yet the fanatics of one extreme ironically resemble the fanatics of the other.
[1] Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of Inequality Among Mankind, Second Part, from The Social Contract and Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, ed. L. Crocker (NY: Washington Square, 1967), 237.[2] Rousseau, Inequality, 246 (the last page); and 221.[3] Rousseau, Social Contract IV.VIII, page 145.[4] These two passages: Rousseau, The Social Contract IV.VIII (see note 1), 142, 144.[5] Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile (Everyman edition), 259, 249, 271.[6] Max Scheler, Ressentiment (NY: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1961; first German edition: 1912), 121.[7] Max Scheler, On the Eternal in Man, 367-68.
