Why wouldn’t utilitarianism just weigh the human costs of those measures against proposed benefit of “improving the gene pool” and alternative possible remedies, like anything else?
Probably because from the outset, only one sort of answer is inside the realm of acceptable answers. Anything else would be far outside the Overton window. If they already know what sort of answer they have to produce, doing the actual calculations has no benefit. It’s like a theologian evaluating arguments about the existence of God.
Ok, then that sounds like a criticism of utilitarians, or maybe people, and not utilitarianism. Also, my point didn’t even mention utilitarianism, so what does that have to do with the above?
Why wouldn’t utilitarianism just weigh the human costs of those measures against proposed benefit of “improving the gene pool” and alternative possible remedies, like anything else?
Probably because from the outset, only one sort of answer is inside the realm of acceptable answers. Anything else would be far outside the Overton window. If they already know what sort of answer they have to produce, doing the actual calculations has no benefit. It’s like a theologian evaluating arguments about the existence of God.
Ok, then that sounds like a criticism of utilitarians, or maybe people, and not utilitarianism. Also, my point didn’t even mention utilitarianism, so what does that have to do with the above?
You mentioned positions I described as straw men or weak men. Darwinist utilitarianism would be more like a steel man.