We agree that reducing suffering in relation to babies being born through slight genetic manipulations. And you've said that that's not social Darwinism. OK. — Manuel

Well, it is not. Social darwinism is inextricably tied to scientific racism, classism, prejudice against the "insane", etc.

We're having a conversation as if by "national socialism" you think that I mean something other than Nazism. Sure, theoretically, you could have a nationalist and socialist state and it may not be all that bad, but what that is isn't national socialism. We occasionally call that "European socialism", "social democracy", or "evolutionary" or "reformist" socialism. Maybe it oughta have its own name, but what it just isn't is "national socialism".

By that a "spade" is "just a spade", I mean that what I have said about the eugenics debate is just what has happened and that what I have said that it is just is what it is. There's nothing for you to infer. That's just what I'm telling you has happened.

I intended to show that her theory could be used for the opposite purpose of only contributing to the quality of life of those already included within the political sphere — thewonder

Doing so would be to restrict the flourishing of those who might be part of the political sphere; of those capable, yet prevented, from entering into the bios.

So for example Nussbaum recently used her arguments in favour of a gorilla being freed from a cage in which it had long suffered. Yet the gorilla is arguably not party to the bios.

I dont see this as a good objection to a theory. You can twist a lot of innocent theories to your menovelant means, not just social Darwinism. That's just a testament to human creativity. — Wheatley

Perhaps, but Plato, Nietzsche, and Marx, I think, are evidence of the potential misuse of philosophy.


Right, her idea is to bring everyone within bios, but I think that the very division of life as such is what allows for the exclusion of whomever from the political sphere. It's all in Homo Sacer.

Right, her idea is to bring everyone within bios, but I think that the very division of life as such is what allows for the exclusion of whomever from the political sphere. It's all in Homo Sacer. — thewonder

For Nussbaum the division is based on capabilities; so presumably the Homo Sacer, though set apart, remains capable and hence entitled to moral consideration.

Perhaps, but Plato, Nietzsche, and Marx, I think, are evidence of the potential misuse of philosophy. — thewonder

If you misinterpret them, yes.

Right, I'm not saying that Nussbaum would will my reducto ad absurdum. By that it is a reducto ad absurdum, it is intended to show that a potential consequence of her theory is antithetical to its mission. It's not an ad hominem. I'm not saying that she's a eugenicist. I'm saying that her theory can be used to justify the opposite of what she wants for it to.

...and they were misinterpreted to justify aristocracy, Marxism-Leninism, and Nazism.

The point of the experiment is to see if there is social risk to any given philosophy.

The point of the experiment is to see if there is social risk to any given philosophy. — thewonder

But it's not the philosophers job to worry about that.

Perhaps, I mean, I don't want to stifle anyone's creativity, here.

When we think of philosophy as historically tied to the advisory of sovereignty, though, and have many examples of its abuse, should we not feel a certain gravitas and assume, perhaps not in a way that considers this or that philosopher as all that culpable, a certain degree of responsibility? Ought we not to, as philosophy is to cultivate a way of life in some regards, consider the effect it will have on the world?

When we think of philosophy as historically tied to the advisory of sovereignty, though, and have many examples of its abuse, should we not feel a certain gravitas and assume, perhaps not in a way that considers this or that philosopher as all that culpable, a certain degree of responsibility? Ought we not to, as philosophy is to cultivate a way of life in some regards, consider the effect it will have on the world? — thewonder

But there are philosophies right now that negatively affect the world, why not focus on them?. Hindsight is also 20/20, do you think Marx and Nietzsche could have known how their philosophy would affect the world the way they did?

I focus on them too much as it is. It doesn't do anyone too good to be all that good to be combative.

Consider if that Nietzsche or Marx had only thought about the gifted eugenicist. Maybe things would've turned out a lot better?

I don't know. It was just a thought.