is it moral for people to be sterilized biased on intelligence?

Question

I know I will get flack for this question but it has to be asked. Would it be morally right to sterilize people whose IQ is below 70. I am not advocating killing people in any way shape or form but rather a way to increase national intelligence over a shorter period of time.

I am just wondering how many people is such an idea going to offend.

DuckPhup

I think its a little unrealistic to sterize over 80% of the worlds population

judy_r8

its actualy been proven that over 80% of people who are mentaly retared is as a result of DNA.

sheseh everyone is attacking me on this one! I am not saying that we should go out and do it. I am just asking your opinion on it!

Answer 1

Hitler was using the same kind of logic. Every person in society has his/her own value. Being Intelligent does not always mean being creative and positive for society. And are these IQ test fool proof ?

Besides , breeding between remaining people will reduce gene pool and may back fire.

Added: Hey! I am not attacking you. Just giving my opinion .

Answer 2

My friend, if everybody would be so clever, can you tell me who would do the hard work, manual and boring work, the one that no one would choose if they would have the chances?
For everything there is a reason.
Let everybody have their place, usually the ones who make more damage are not the "weaker" but the "brightest".
Labeling somebody only by the IQ does not take into account other very important factors such as strong will power, ambition, emotional stability and the simple trigger of being in the right place and the right moment to be able to develop the best of you.
Offend?
No, you are not the first person who make this question.
I would sterilize people with severe genetically transmissible diseases, since they not only are a heavy load to the society, but to their family. At least till somebody finds out how to modify their descendancy.
A problem is to define very precisely what is " a severe genetically disorder".
National intelligence will not improve if people become more illiterated and brainwashed, disregarding their IQ. I do not agree with you. Religion can be a very effective method to control people out of fear to be punished, since the supervisor of our mistakes can see it all, we do have no escape.
Sterilization is not the way of increasing national intelligence....by the way what for?
A country supposedly chooses their government, but not for that their decisions. In such a case, I would apply more severe penalties to the irresponsible people in power. No apologies, no excuses. Who made something stupid, once...well we are all humans. If is a habit, then sterilization would be useless because most of them have already their children. Implanting them a chip for inactivating their power grid or just go back to the frontal lobotomy would be enough to neutralize them.

Answer 3

Do you have some data "proving" that 80% of the mentally disabled inherited their condition? Because it's not true. Very few of the world's handicapped people with IQs below 70 were born to parents with similar handicaps. And seeing that the AVERAGE person has an IQ of approximately 100-110, even if did take your assumptions as truth, it would not make the average population any more intelligent, being as they're the minority.

Intelligence is not inherited.

Moreover, sterlizing a population based on intelligence is plain stupid. You want to increase intelligence? Try funding schools and getting parents involved in their children's academic lives.

Answer 4

I am shocked to hear such a question from a Jew, but maybe you're very young.

Here is a snippet from Encyclopedia Britannica on line,

eugenics article

"the study of human improvement by genetic means.
….
The American Eugenics Society, founded in 1926, supported the proposition that the wealth and social position of the upper classes was justified by a superior genetic endowment. American eugenists also supported restrictions on immigration from nations with “inferior” stock, such as Italy, Greece, and countries of eastern Europe, and argued for the sterilization of insane, retarded, and epileptic citizens in the United States. As a result of their efforts, sterilization laws were passed in more than half of the U.S. states, and isolated instances of involuntary sterilization continued into the 1970s. The assumptions of eugenists came under sharp criticism beginning in the 1930s and were discredited after the German Nazis used eugenics to support the extermination of Jews and the murder of many Gypsies, mentally ill persons, and homosexuals."

Karma is right, and in case you're unaware, Britannica is a reputable source, and often recommended as a starting point for academic research.

Answer 5

This isn't really a moral question ... more of an ethics question.

Ethically, you'd want to find other examples of similar, but different, practices to weigh against. One good example might be the aborting of fetuses exhibiting genetic defects ... many whom would likely fall into your category if carried to term.

Also we should consider the consequences ... sterilization would violate many of the basic principles we consider human rights ... you could consider it similar to involuntary mutilation.

But an individual who is incapable of caring for themselves is in no position to care for a child ... and if the retardation is genetic in nature, then our protection of individuals exhibiting this abnormality is two-fold :

(a) We require a significant amount of human resources to care for these individuals.

(b) By protecting them, their negative genetic characteristics become more prevalent ... increasing (a). These individuals, if not cared for by society, would likely have been culled from the herd prior to maturation ... thus preventing continuation of the line. Survival of the fittest in action.


But we, as society-driven humans, have caused a great deal of stagnation in our genetics in other ways as well. Many genetic-related disabilities ... the need for corrective lenses ... these have dilluted our gene pool through compensatory measures. Should we sterilize blind or deaf children also? What about those who need significant eyeglass correct? These are questions we can use to measure the validity of the initial.

IQ scores are based on a pattern of distribution ... 100 is defined as the mean (50% of the population is above, 50% is below). Let us suppose we increase everyone's IQ ability by a set amount ... despite a potentially significant increase in the intelligence of the population, the mean IQ remains the same ... as do the scores of every individual. Over time we'd be sterilizing individuals whom, by our present standard, were more intelligent than our original level.

And how do we decide the IQ required to meet our standard? Any choice is fairly arbitrary. 5% of the population exhibits an IQ of less than 70 ... quite a significant number ... that's 15,000,000 in the United States alone.

I don't know what a good answer would be ... I'm torn somewhat because I do see our population weakening itself through the protection of members whom would otherwise be removed by natural selection ... but I concern over the use of arbitrary measures invoked by a few powerful elite as a substitute ... and "unnatural selection" if you may.

Answer 6

Not moral, and not a good idea, I don't think - some of the best parents I know have low IQs, and some have really high ones - the worst parents I know seem to be those with a middling IQ. So - I guess we should sterilize the average if that's how we're going to do it :-)

Answer 7

"its actualy been proven that over 80% of people who are mentaly retared is as a result of DNA."

Learn how to spell. And while you're at it, learn how to speak English. Hell, you may be a candidate for sterilization under your own criteria.

Eugenics is crap. Read about it and read about some famous advocates.

Answer 8

Even if we had a reliable measure of intelligence, and we don't, it would be immoral to execute such a program. IQ is not a direct measure of success or of social compatibility.

As an aside, most IQ tests have been shown to be culturally biased in favor of the dominant culture that produced them.

Answer 9

Perhaps stupid people aren't as valuable as members of society, but they're often happier than smart people. Maybe we should sterilise everyone with an IQ over 90. The resulting race of morons wouldn't be able to understand how to organise wars, or why we shouldn't share things more equally.

Answer 10

How is it possible that you can talk of morality, and compulsory sterilisation in the same breath.
What gives anyone the right to determine another's right to procreate.
You may be brighter than the person you want to sterilise, but the odds are that they have some skill beyond your abilities.
Intelligence is not the only reason for living.
In your world of "superthinkers". who is going to do the manual tasks, because for sure you will consider it beneath you.