Beginning in the 1920s, over 30 states in the U.S. practiced “eugenics,” that is, sterilizing
persons the government considered undesireable, because they were mentally disabled, poor,
or otherwise unfit or unable to raise children. The practice continued in some states into the
1970s. In the state of North Carolina, an effort was made to get the state legislature to
compensate these victims with payments of up to $50,000 in recognition of the wrong done to
them. Although the Governor and the House of Representatives supported the program, it was
never passed into law.
What will be an ideal response?
1. Critics of the law worried about the total cost of the program, estimated at $90 million if
all the living victims came forward. Consider how the state should respond ethically to
these victims and with what justification.
2. Some critics also worried that it would set a precedent for reparations for victims of
slavery and other state action now recognized as wrong. Are these concerns sufficient to
justify refusing to pay the eugenics victims? What other wrongs deserve compensation
now? How could we ethically distinguish those wrongs which deserve payment and
those which do not?
3. Research credible sources on your own state's history to determine if eugenics was
practiced by your state government. Then try to determine whether any efforts have
been made to obtain compensation for the victims of eugenics. Consider the ethical
arguments presented on both sides.
You might also like to view...
The invisible-hand argument against broadening corporate responsibility says that business's appetite for profit should
be controlled by the hand of the government.
a. True b. FalseThe premise "All dogs go to heaven" is a particular proposition.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)
Answer the question in the passage below from one of the perspectives described in the text.Jan witnessed a certain Mr. Gaines commit a crime several months ago. Despite his certain knowledge of Gaines's guilt, the charges against him were dismissed because of an error in the investigation. Jan is especially upset about the nature of the crime-(a) Gaines was defrauding a charitable organization that Jan happens to think accomplishes a lot of good. Jan also knows that the crime was committed out of greed, since (b) Gaines owns a large jewelry store and is already well-off. Gaines has spoken to his friends about how he got away without having to stand trial, and (c) he is gloating about it.One day, Jan is walking up the alley that runs behind Gaines's store, and he notices that the back
door has been left unlocked and, from the look of things, it appears that the burglar alarm has not been turned on. One of several vaults in the back room has a half-open door. He realizes that he could make off very easily with a large amount of expensive jewelry. (d) The likelihood of his being caught is very small. It occurs to him that it wouldn't be quite the same as stealing, certainly not as bad as what he saw Gaines do, if (e) he did not keep the loot for himself but gave it away. It occurs to him that (f) if he takes what doesn't belong to him he may not be any better than Gaines, and on the small chance he did get caught, nobody would believe him, and (g) the penalties would be stiff. But (h) this is his chance to see justice done with regard to Gaines, and he can make some deserving people very happy with the proceeds of the burglary. Should Jan grab the jewels? What will be an ideal response?
Reason is conceived in which two ways?
What will be an ideal response?