Southard: Eugenics vs. Cacogenics 



409 



medicine. We accept now as guidance 

 what we formerly regarded as inter- 

 ference and are welcoming as super- 

 vision what we should decline as control. 

 Not even yet are we ready, in America 

 at all events, to submit such matters to 

 legislation. My friend and colleague. 

 Professor Minot, has long insisted that 

 we begin to die at birth or before. It 

 it certainly true that laws often begin 

 to lose their effect upon their passage 

 and that the most effective laws, at 

 least of the North-European races, are 

 unwritten. Accordingly, it seems best 

 to agree with those who fear the effects 

 of social legislation. Social legislation 

 is likely to be hasty, premature, 

 superficial, partial, trimming; it is apt 

 to be born of partisan or sectarian 

 compromise ; and it rarely takes account 

 of the future. 



The unwritten laws of public opinion 

 may be subject to many of the above- 

 mentioned charges; but they are at 

 least not in the hands of the lawyers. 



In whose hands are these unwritten 

 laws? I find that social woikers in 

 general, certain workers in every im- 

 portant religious sect, physicians and 

 hygienists, are the most ardent seekers 

 for knowledge in these fields. This is 

 especially true of eugenics, which has 

 come to take its place alongside chari- 

 ties and correction, sex education, the 

 alcohol problem, mental hygiene, con- 

 trol of tuberculosis, child labor, and the 

 like, as a worthy competitior for social 

 attention. 



THE PLACE OF EUGENICS. 



It requires a somewhat larger pur- 

 view to ascribe to eugenics its rightful 

 place. Logically taken, eugenics is not 

 quite such an elaboration of the obvious 

 as, e.g., the antituberculosis program. 

 It is at first sight a curious fact that the 

 members of the American Breeders' 

 Association should catch the point of 

 eugenics earlier than many high-minded 

 social workers who are working in this 

 country to improve the environment of 

 man, himself regarded as an entity 

 varying with the environment. Not a 

 plant or animal breeder of this associa- 

 tion but is equally persuaded of the 



value of altering environment, of which 

 he sees the most convincing examples 

 every season ; but the value of ' pedi- 

 greed livestock and of special breeds of 

 plants is so obvious to the breeder that 

 I doubt if he would understand the 

 hesitancy of the urban world of social 

 and allied service to adopt the common- 

 places of the breeder's philosophy. 



But, judging from the flood of 

 popular books and articles on eugenics, 

 I take it that the urban world of social 

 service is fast waking to an interest 

 which will one day take its proper place. 



But are plant breeders and animal 

 breeders more likely than social workers 

 to evaluate the ethical motives and aims 

 of eugenics? What are the motives 

 and aims of eugenics"'' We shall find a 

 number of more or less divergent 

 accounts. 



I suppose that the British origin of 

 the movement and its following upon 

 the wave of utilitarian ethics which 

 came to expression in Britain in the 

 earlier years of the nineteenth century 

 (though intimations are plain so far 

 back as Hobbes) would lead many to the 

 belief that eugenics is above all pruden- 

 tial. Is it not perhaps subject to the 

 fallacy of adding cubits by taking 

 thought ? 



The telling arguments of Galton, the 

 graphic presentations of Pearson, the 

 claims of still more precise analysis by 

 the Mendelians, all savor of the intel- 

 lectual. They are intended to convince 

 rather than persuade. They often do 

 convince without persuading. 



Doubtless no enumeration of ethical 

 systems can be complete, especially 

 now that everybody is well aware that 

 manners change with the times. Set- 

 ting aside the various political and 

 religious systems of ethics as embodying 

 in various particular forms the more 

 fundamental human tendencies, we may 

 divide with Wundt the ethical systems 

 of man into two main groups. * 



The eudaemonistic or utilitarian 

 group of ethical theories is surprisingly 

 British in its origin and continual dis- 

 play. The names of Hobbes, Locke, 

 Hume, Hartley, Bentham, Mill, are 

 prominent in its history. The more 



