Scan barcode
csjohnston's review against another edition
3.0
Of two minds on this one. As expected, Chesterton is clever and persuasive in his argument against eugenics, a practice that is broadly accepted today as an evil pseudoscience. Obviously not every issue is going to map neatly onto the issues of today, but it is easy to see someone generalizing his warning against a "scientifically organized state" exercising its authority to interfere with intrinsic right of a human being to control their own reproduction to the contentious mask/vaccine mandates instituted in the interest of public health. The are two obvious differences here:
1. Mask & vaccine mandates are not significant impositions on human freedom or dignity and
2. There is a direct safety interest involved, rather than a dubious potential improvement to human flourishing in some indeterminate future
It's a shame that distributism is not a mainstream part of the economic policy discourse because I think I could be persuaded (even if there are a number of pragmatic concerns here).
****Reconsideration --> I don't think I would adhere to distributism actually bc I don't agree with Chesterton that property is a sacred/eternal right, it's a conditional and temporary right that should be subordinated to higher priorities
1. Mask & vaccine mandates are not significant impositions on human freedom or dignity and
2. There is a direct safety interest involved, rather than a dubious potential improvement to human flourishing in some indeterminate future
It's a shame that distributism is not a mainstream part of the economic policy discourse because I think I could be persuaded (even if there are a number of pragmatic concerns here).
****Reconsideration --> I don't think I would adhere to distributism actually bc I don't agree with Chesterton that property is a sacred/eternal right, it's a conditional and temporary right that should be subordinated to higher priorities
skylarh's review against another edition
4.0
Chesterton began this book in the 1910’s, before eugenics realized its full horror in the holocaust, but it is a disturbingly prophetic and surprisingly poignant book even in our own day. What makes this book so arresting is that it is about far more than eugenics: it is about how evil succeeds subtly, about politics, and about economics.
Especially interesting was Chesterton's categorization of the four types of defenders of eugenics, because these categories can apply to the defenders of a great many social policies, past and present, and they describe well the various kinds of insufficient arguments used in political discourse. There are the Euphemists, who do not call a policy by its real name or speak of it in blunt language, but use scientific terminology and much verbosity to disguise its more disturbing ramifications. (“I mean merely that short words startle them, while long words soothe them. And they are utterly incapable of translating the one into the other, however obviously they mean the same thing. Say to them ‘The persuasive and even coercive powers of the citizen should enable him to make sure that the burden of longevity in the previous generation does not become disproportionate and intolerable,…’; say this to them and they will sway slightly to and fro like babies sent to sleep in cradles. Say to them, ‘Murder your mother,’ and they sit up quite suddenly. Yet the two sentences, in cold logic, are exactly the same.”) Then there are the Casuists, who equate their more disturbing policies with much more limited policies and suggest that if you permit the one, you must concede the other. (“Suppose I say, ‘I dislike this spread of Cannibalism in the West End restaurants.’ Somebody is sure to say, ‘Well, after all, Queen Eleanor when she sucked blood from her husband’s arm was a cannibal.’ What is one to say to such people? One can only say, ‘Confine yourself to sucking poisoned blood from people’s arms, and I permit you to call yourself by the glorious title of Cannibal.’”) Next are the Autocrats, who trust that their proposed reforms will, despite all possible concerns, work out okay, because they’ll be there to make sure they work out okay. (“Where they will be, and for how long, they do not explain very clearly…And these people most certainly propose to be responsible for a whole movement after it has left their hands.”) Then there are the Endeavourers, who optimistically rely on their honest attempts to deal with a problem, without bothering to determine what the effects of their policies will be. (“[T:]he best thing the honest Endeavourer could do would be to make an honest attempt to know what he is doing. And not to do anything else until he has found out.”) Finally, there is a category “so hopeless and futile” that Chesterton says he cannot think of a name for them. “But whenever anyone attempts to argue rationally for or against any existent and recognizable thing, such as [a specific piece of:] legislation, there are always people who begin to chop hay about Socialism and Individualism; and say, ‘YOU object to all State interference…’” But, Chesterton insists, “I am not going to be turned from the discussion of that direct issue to bottomless botherations about Socialism and Individualism, or the relative advantages of always turning to the right and always turning to the left.”
Chesterton offers insight, too, into how tyranny develops, how “the excuse for the last oppression will always serve as well for the next oppression.” And he predicts a state that is on its way to arriving, and has, in small part, already arrived: “our civilization will find itself in an interesting situation, not without humour; in which the citizen is still supposed to wield imperial powers over the ends of the earth, but has admittedly no power over his own body and soul at all. He will still be consulted by politicians about whether opium is good for China-men, but not about whether ale is good for him. He will be cross-examined for his opinions about the danger of allowing Kamskatka to have a war-fleet, but not about allowing his own child to have a wooden sword.”
I credit Chesterton with partly revising my view of Socialism, which I have always seen as a system that, unlike Capitalism, does not take into account the fact of original sin (and therefore assumes that a redistribution of wealth could actually work without causing many to stop working altogether). While I still think socialism overlooks human motivations, and that, practically speaking, Capitalism makes better outcomes of a fallen world, I can now agree with Chesterton that Socialism is not actually (as I formerly believed) a system founded primarily on naïve optimism. “The Socialist system,” he writes, “in a more special sense than any other, is founded not on optimism but on original sin. It proposes that the State, as the conscience of the community, should possess all primary forms of property; and that obviously on the ground that men cannot be trusted to own or barter or combine or compete without injury to themselves. Just as a State might own all the guns lest people should shoot each other, so this State would own all the gold and land lest they should cheat or rackrent or exploit each other….it seems almost incredible that anybody ever thought it optimistic.” The problem, of course, is that the State too is composed of fallen men. Socialism and Capitalism are both, Chesterton argues, types of prisons, but at least in the prison of Capitalism, there is more chance of escape. “Capitalism is a corrupt prison. That is the best that can be said for Capitalism. But it is something to be said for it; for a man is a little freer in that corrupt prison than he would be in a complete prison. As a man can find one jailer more lax than another, so he could find one employer more kind than another; he has at least a choice of tyrants.” In a Socialist system, however, “he finds the same tyrant at every turn.”
In any event, we now have neither Socialism nor Capitalism, but a horrid compromise, which Chesterton describes well: “It may be said of Socialism, therefore, that its friends recommended it as increasing equality, while its foes resisted it as decreasing liberty….The compromise eventually made was one of the most interesting and even curious cases in history. It was decided to do everything that had ever been denounced in Socialism, and nothing that had ever been desired in it…we proceeded to prove that it was possible to sacrifice liberty without gaining equality….In short, people decided that it was impossible to achieve any of the good of Socialism, but they comforted themselves by achieving all the bad.”
Sometimes Chesterton requires great patience to follow. He will move from medieval planning to the American colonies to Shakespeare to the French War in a matter of pages, and one cannot help but wonder, “Where is this going? What does this have to do with the topic of his book?” But if you are patient, the connections do come, and they are often rewarding. And there is always wit sprinkled throughout his work; even while reading a volume on so serious and heavy a topic as “Eugenics and other evils,” I found myself laughing out loud.
Especially interesting was Chesterton's categorization of the four types of defenders of eugenics, because these categories can apply to the defenders of a great many social policies, past and present, and they describe well the various kinds of insufficient arguments used in political discourse. There are the Euphemists, who do not call a policy by its real name or speak of it in blunt language, but use scientific terminology and much verbosity to disguise its more disturbing ramifications. (“I mean merely that short words startle them, while long words soothe them. And they are utterly incapable of translating the one into the other, however obviously they mean the same thing. Say to them ‘The persuasive and even coercive powers of the citizen should enable him to make sure that the burden of longevity in the previous generation does not become disproportionate and intolerable,…’; say this to them and they will sway slightly to and fro like babies sent to sleep in cradles. Say to them, ‘Murder your mother,’ and they sit up quite suddenly. Yet the two sentences, in cold logic, are exactly the same.”) Then there are the Casuists, who equate their more disturbing policies with much more limited policies and suggest that if you permit the one, you must concede the other. (“Suppose I say, ‘I dislike this spread of Cannibalism in the West End restaurants.’ Somebody is sure to say, ‘Well, after all, Queen Eleanor when she sucked blood from her husband’s arm was a cannibal.’ What is one to say to such people? One can only say, ‘Confine yourself to sucking poisoned blood from people’s arms, and I permit you to call yourself by the glorious title of Cannibal.’”) Next are the Autocrats, who trust that their proposed reforms will, despite all possible concerns, work out okay, because they’ll be there to make sure they work out okay. (“Where they will be, and for how long, they do not explain very clearly…And these people most certainly propose to be responsible for a whole movement after it has left their hands.”) Then there are the Endeavourers, who optimistically rely on their honest attempts to deal with a problem, without bothering to determine what the effects of their policies will be. (“[T:]he best thing the honest Endeavourer could do would be to make an honest attempt to know what he is doing. And not to do anything else until he has found out.”) Finally, there is a category “so hopeless and futile” that Chesterton says he cannot think of a name for them. “But whenever anyone attempts to argue rationally for or against any existent and recognizable thing, such as [a specific piece of:] legislation, there are always people who begin to chop hay about Socialism and Individualism; and say, ‘YOU object to all State interference…’” But, Chesterton insists, “I am not going to be turned from the discussion of that direct issue to bottomless botherations about Socialism and Individualism, or the relative advantages of always turning to the right and always turning to the left.”
Chesterton offers insight, too, into how tyranny develops, how “the excuse for the last oppression will always serve as well for the next oppression.” And he predicts a state that is on its way to arriving, and has, in small part, already arrived: “our civilization will find itself in an interesting situation, not without humour; in which the citizen is still supposed to wield imperial powers over the ends of the earth, but has admittedly no power over his own body and soul at all. He will still be consulted by politicians about whether opium is good for China-men, but not about whether ale is good for him. He will be cross-examined for his opinions about the danger of allowing Kamskatka to have a war-fleet, but not about allowing his own child to have a wooden sword.”
I credit Chesterton with partly revising my view of Socialism, which I have always seen as a system that, unlike Capitalism, does not take into account the fact of original sin (and therefore assumes that a redistribution of wealth could actually work without causing many to stop working altogether). While I still think socialism overlooks human motivations, and that, practically speaking, Capitalism makes better outcomes of a fallen world, I can now agree with Chesterton that Socialism is not actually (as I formerly believed) a system founded primarily on naïve optimism. “The Socialist system,” he writes, “in a more special sense than any other, is founded not on optimism but on original sin. It proposes that the State, as the conscience of the community, should possess all primary forms of property; and that obviously on the ground that men cannot be trusted to own or barter or combine or compete without injury to themselves. Just as a State might own all the guns lest people should shoot each other, so this State would own all the gold and land lest they should cheat or rackrent or exploit each other….it seems almost incredible that anybody ever thought it optimistic.” The problem, of course, is that the State too is composed of fallen men. Socialism and Capitalism are both, Chesterton argues, types of prisons, but at least in the prison of Capitalism, there is more chance of escape. “Capitalism is a corrupt prison. That is the best that can be said for Capitalism. But it is something to be said for it; for a man is a little freer in that corrupt prison than he would be in a complete prison. As a man can find one jailer more lax than another, so he could find one employer more kind than another; he has at least a choice of tyrants.” In a Socialist system, however, “he finds the same tyrant at every turn.”
In any event, we now have neither Socialism nor Capitalism, but a horrid compromise, which Chesterton describes well: “It may be said of Socialism, therefore, that its friends recommended it as increasing equality, while its foes resisted it as decreasing liberty….The compromise eventually made was one of the most interesting and even curious cases in history. It was decided to do everything that had ever been denounced in Socialism, and nothing that had ever been desired in it…we proceeded to prove that it was possible to sacrifice liberty without gaining equality….In short, people decided that it was impossible to achieve any of the good of Socialism, but they comforted themselves by achieving all the bad.”
Sometimes Chesterton requires great patience to follow. He will move from medieval planning to the American colonies to Shakespeare to the French War in a matter of pages, and one cannot help but wonder, “Where is this going? What does this have to do with the topic of his book?” But if you are patient, the connections do come, and they are often rewarding. And there is always wit sprinkled throughout his work; even while reading a volume on so serious and heavy a topic as “Eugenics and other evils,” I found myself laughing out loud.
alexandrabree's review against another edition
4.0
I did find this hard to get into initially, I have started and DNF'd the audiobook on multiple occasions.
This book is a must read and I was so glad that it is so focused on the various topics and really took the time to pick things apart and explain in detail.
I need to reread this ASAP though because I wasn't aware of the depth I was getting into and was half listening while I was driving and I know I missed huge chunks of information.
This book is a must read and I was so glad that it is so focused on the various topics and really took the time to pick things apart and explain in detail.
I need to reread this ASAP though because I wasn't aware of the depth I was getting into and was half listening while I was driving and I know I missed huge chunks of information.
anna_kristina_nord's review against another edition
5.0
My quiet protest against a certain thesis now getting a lot of hype
hades9stages's review against another edition
3.0
not enough emphasis on the eugenics part which was why i started reading this :( the other stuff was interesting but in some parts outdated. the part on eugenics was actually amazing though
hutchisonterrace's review against another edition
1.0
boy this book is a slog to get through. there were a few bits and pieces here and there that were interesting but it otherwise felt like he was going around and around in circles. though you have to commend a guy for being against eugenics!
margaret_hovestadt's review against another edition
challenging
funny
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
Very appropriate for today and the current discussions on poverty, abortion, euthanasia and other eugenics related things.
wwatts1734's review against another edition
5.0
Eugenics is the belief that the lot of humanity can be improved by improving the gene pool. This can be done by encouraging those with supposedly superior genetics to procreate with other supposedly genetically superior individuals. But most often, this is implemented by preventing the supposedly inferior people from reproducing. As disgusting as this sounds, Eugenics was a very popular theory among academics at the turn of the 20th Century. GK Chesterton, who wrote this book in the 1920s, was among the few to recognize its evils at that time.
Chesterton takes on the Eugenicists and discusses the evils of Eugenics in no uncertain terms. His arguments are sound and very reasonable. Chesterton explains that, while the good politician sees poverty as evil and proposes ways to eliminate it, the Eugenicist sees the poor as evil and proposes ways to eliminate them. To the Eugenicist, evils do not consist of ideas, policies or behaviors, they consist of people, and the way to eliminate evil is not to convince people to turn away from them and do good, but rather the Eugenicist seeks to eliminate the people who constitute the evil. Carrying this further, the Eugenicist seeks to destroy things that most decent people would see as goods or rights, such as the right of certain people to prosper, reproduce, and live their lives without harassment. Chesterton extends his criticism, not just to Eugenics, but to other characteristics of what he calls the "scientifically organized state." To Chesterton, Germany was the home of bad ideas about Eugenics and its sister evils. Since this book was written shortly after the First World War, his bashing of Germany along with the evils he denounces would have been welcome by readers in the English speaking world.
Chesterton's criticism of Eugenics was prescient. While influential Germans advocated Eugenics and the Scientifically Organized State before and during the First World War, it was Hitler and the Nazis who took these bad ideas to their grotesque and logical conclusions through the Holocaust and the Concentration Camp system, which were the evil spawn of Eugenicist thinking. Chesterton wrote this book years before the Nazis came to power, so his warnings were prophetic. After the Second World War, Hitler caused the ideas of Eugenics to fall out of favor in the civilized world, and today one does not hear such ideas uttered aloud anywhere except perhaps among the Alt Right. Still, the whisper of Eugenicist thought can be seen underlying many modern ideas and policies. For example, when a statesman responds to an epidemic in the third world, not by supplying the antibiotics and other supplies that could cure the disease, but by pushing contraceptives in the country, thus curing what the Eugenicist sees as the real problem, that situation is the echo from hell of Eugenicist ideology. Because Eugenics thought is still alive and well in the 21st century, it is so important today that reasonable people read this book and understand the ideas that Chesterton presents.
Chesterton takes on the Eugenicists and discusses the evils of Eugenics in no uncertain terms. His arguments are sound and very reasonable. Chesterton explains that, while the good politician sees poverty as evil and proposes ways to eliminate it, the Eugenicist sees the poor as evil and proposes ways to eliminate them. To the Eugenicist, evils do not consist of ideas, policies or behaviors, they consist of people, and the way to eliminate evil is not to convince people to turn away from them and do good, but rather the Eugenicist seeks to eliminate the people who constitute the evil. Carrying this further, the Eugenicist seeks to destroy things that most decent people would see as goods or rights, such as the right of certain people to prosper, reproduce, and live their lives without harassment. Chesterton extends his criticism, not just to Eugenics, but to other characteristics of what he calls the "scientifically organized state." To Chesterton, Germany was the home of bad ideas about Eugenics and its sister evils. Since this book was written shortly after the First World War, his bashing of Germany along with the evils he denounces would have been welcome by readers in the English speaking world.
Chesterton's criticism of Eugenics was prescient. While influential Germans advocated Eugenics and the Scientifically Organized State before and during the First World War, it was Hitler and the Nazis who took these bad ideas to their grotesque and logical conclusions through the Holocaust and the Concentration Camp system, which were the evil spawn of Eugenicist thinking. Chesterton wrote this book years before the Nazis came to power, so his warnings were prophetic. After the Second World War, Hitler caused the ideas of Eugenics to fall out of favor in the civilized world, and today one does not hear such ideas uttered aloud anywhere except perhaps among the Alt Right. Still, the whisper of Eugenicist thought can be seen underlying many modern ideas and policies. For example, when a statesman responds to an epidemic in the third world, not by supplying the antibiotics and other supplies that could cure the disease, but by pushing contraceptives in the country, thus curing what the Eugenicist sees as the real problem, that situation is the echo from hell of Eugenicist ideology. Because Eugenics thought is still alive and well in the 21st century, it is so important today that reasonable people read this book and understand the ideas that Chesterton presents.