Be Wary of Certain Elites

The title is meant to be a double entendre. The elites I am referring to are those that are certain of their assertions almost to the degree of fanaticism. This has happened before.

In his new book, "Social Justice Fallacies", Thomas Sowell reminds us of the eugenics movement of the first part of the 19th century. Certain progressive elites in that period asserted that genetics were determinative of a person's value to society. Sowell relates how Professor Edward A. Ross, and his followers, were concerned about 'racial suicide'. By this term he meant the overpopulation of western society by, in Sowell's words, "descendants of backward peoples, who's physical appearance 'proclaims inferiority of type'."

Ross lamented that widespread access to medical advances was "the brightening of the survival prospect of the ignorant, the stupid, the careless and the very poor."

The views of Ross were supported by the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, Roscoe Pound (Dean of Harvard law school and later Supreme Court Justice, John Maynard Keynes, Sir Francis Galton, Winston Churchill, Neville Chamberlain, Professor Richard T. Ely, one of the founders of the American Economy Association, Professor Irving Fisher of Yale, Professor Henry Rogers Seager of Columbian University, Professor Frank Taussig of Harvard, to name but a few.

The views of Ross formed the basis of 'Eugenics', which was an agenda to reduce or prevent the survival of people considered genetically inferior. The agenda included custodial care, confinement and sterilization of the genetically inferior.

Sowell notes: "The casual ease with which leading scholars of their time could advocate imprisoning people for life, that had committed no crime, and depriving them of a normal life, is a painfully sobering reminder of what can happen when an idea or a vision becomes a heady dogma that overwhelms all other considerations."

What distinguishes 'certain elites' from critical thinkers is many-fold. Critical thinkers will subject both their beliefs and the beliefs of others to tests of facts and logic. Critical thinkers will both present and consider empirical evidence that runs counter to the belief in question. Critical thinkers will avoid ad hominem denunciations of those that have contrary views. Whereas certain elites will try and suppress evidence contrary to their views through censorship, cancellation and even violence, critical thinkers will listen to and consider such evidence.

One wonders if the proponents of Eugenics thought critically about their agenda. They certainly didn't think about human rights. Another aspect of critical thinking may involve stepping back from the narrow issue in question and asking 'does this really make sense?' How could Eugenics make sense?

Is social justice another heady dogma?