kwalker2> At 02:13 PM 3/14/02 -0600, Kendall Clark wrote:
>> Bah! It seems abundantly clear that the Nazi eugenic genocide had
>> *nothing* to do with the physical health of *individuals* as a
>> kind of moral good. Killing individuals for "polluting the race"
>> isn't even remotely related to whether physical health is some
>> kind of moral good or whether its absence is some kind of moral
>> harm.
>>
>> And, by the way, I think mentioning the Nazis is rather a cheap
>> shot. :>
kwalker2> i think he's referring to Lifton's thesis: the nazi
kwalker2> doctors had a thang for making the national body healthy
kwalker2> by cutting out the cancerous jew.
Sure, I'm not only familiar with this work, but I alluded it in my answer to Doug, which you quote above.
kwalker2> when we start talking healthy society, etc. this kind of
kwalker2> analysis isn't a cheap shot, at all.
Right, but that's not what we were talking about... I was asking a fairly narrow question: Is physical healthy a moral good of any kind?
There are and have been all sorts of fascistic pefectionist ideologies associated with physical beauty and power. So what? That's really got nothing to do with my narrow question to Doug.
kwalker2> i'd urge you to read Ehrenreich and English's _For Her Own
kwalker2> Good_ for starters.
Thanks.
Best, Kendall Clark