Full Answer Section

Opposing Teams:

• Team Hobbes (Pro-Eugenics): Argues that Eugenics can be justified under a Hobbesian social contract to ensure a stable and orderly society.
• Team Rousseau (Anti-Eugenics): Argues that Eugenics violates the core principles of a Rousseauian social contract, undermining individual liberty and equality.

Team Hobbes (Pro-Eugenics):

• Social Order and Security: Under Hobbesian theory, individuals surrender some freedoms to a sovereign power (the state) in exchange for security and order. Eugenics, by eliminating genetic diseases and promoting desirable traits, could create a healthier, more productive society. This enhances overall security and well-being, fulfilling the social contract.
• Preventing “The War of All Against All”: Hobbes believed humans are naturally self-interested, leading to a potential state of chaos (“The War of All Against All”). Eugenics, by promoting traits like cooperation and intelligence, could create a more peaceful and harmonious society, aligning with the social contract’s goal of escaping the natural state.
• Utilitarian Argument: The greatest good for the greatest number is a key principle. Eugenics, if implemented ethically and effectively, could reduce societal burdens of genetic diseases and improve overall health outcomes, benefiting the majority.

Team Rousseau (Anti-Eugenics):

• Natural Rights and Individual Liberty: Rousseau emphasized the concept of the “Noble Savage,” where individuals are inherently good in their natural state. Eugenics violates this by defining and manipulating what constitutes desirable traits, infringing on individual liberty and bodily autonomy.
• The General Will vs. The Will of the Few: A legitimate social contract reflects the “General Will” of the people. Eugenics programs are often driven by the agendas of a select few, potentially leading to discrimination and oppression against those deemed genetically undesirable.
• Unforeseen Consequences: Eugenics has a history of misuse and unintended consequences. Defining and measuring desirable traits is complex and subjective. Efforts to improve the population genetically could have unforeseen negative social and ethical implications.

Rebuttal Points:

• Team Hobbes: Strict regulations and ethical oversight can minimize risks associated with Eugenics programs.
• Team Rousseau: Alternative solutions like improved healthcare and social programs can address societal issues without resorting to Eugenics.

Conclusion:

Social Contract Theory offers contrasting perspectives on Eugenics. While Hobbesian arguments highlight potential benefits for societal stability and order, Rousseauian principles raise serious concerns about individual liberty and potential misuse. Ultimately, the ethical implications and potential consequences of Eugenics must be carefully considered before any such programs are implemented.

Note: This debate outline provides a framework for both sides. You can add specific examples and reasoning to strengthen each argument during the debate.