Buck V. Bell Essay, Research Paper

People make decisions throughout their everyday lives whether they are good or bad. Parents make the decisions for their children. Parents do this in order for their children to live better lives. If a parent made decisions that could potentially hurt their child, they would be considered unfit parents. Therefore, parents are put in situations that force them to do what is ?morally? right. The point being made is that people interpret morals differently than other people. How can one say that he/she knows the exact answer to the opposed ?moral? in question? They can?t in the theory of Saint Augustine. John Stuart Mill thinks that doing well or more so doing positive things that reflect positive outcomes versus painful outcomes defines morality. Through this one is able to create the best community possible. In the case of Buck v. Bell, Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. has to interpret his own view of what he believes is moral. Through his decision he is able to construct a view, which has an immediate affect on society. It can affect the way lawful decisions are made, and change the overall light of what morality means.

During this controversial case, Holmes has to be careful about how he structures his final opinion because of the impact that it could have on society. ?Public welfare? becomes Holmes? primary defense in that sterilization by the state of Virginia was wrong and inhumane, but the good of the nation may call for the sacrifice of a life in order to ?prevent our being swamped with incompetence? ( ). This statement purely suggests that the nation should participate in genocide. People whom are incompetent are now in a category all to themselves. Therefore, Holmes firmly believes that by eliminating incompetent people from society the nation will be a better place. Just as eliminating disease, which will in turn keep the nation from faulting. Consequently, Virginia is not in the wrong by surgically removing Ms. Buck?s fallopian tubes forcing her not to create a fourth generation of imbeciles. Holmes states, ?the rights of the patient are most carefully considered ( ).? Therefore, it was a civic duty of the sate on behalf of the nation to sterilize Ms. Bell ( ).

John Stuart Mill believes that a supreme principle of morality is needed as a test of whether one is acting moral ( ). If people are, in Mill?s theory, creating the best possible community and respecting one another they are now fulfilling their moral obligation. However, to respect someone depends on one?s ethical principles. Mill believes that the ideal of utility is solely society based. If a society is genuinely happy then that is what is most important.

?So, an individual should make decisions which maximize societal happiness, not simply one?s own individual happiness ( ).?

This is exactly what Holmes displayed in his analysis of the Buck v. Bell case. He felt that if the state was trying to do what was right for the nation, thus what is right for society, then they have the right to do so. To Mill, utility is the ?greatest happiness principle ( ).? Meaning, if one promotes happiness this is good, and anything that reflects the opposite of happiness is negative on society. Holmes finds himself on a two way street because he first, believes that by eliminating imbeciles before they are conceived, he is doing what is best for the society. On the other hand he is verbally stating that he is a eugenist, or an advocate of controlling the production of good offspring. Society is not always going to see a particular issue in the same light. Many people have their own opinion thus making their part of society not so happy. Many women dream of having a family and producing their own offspring, but through Holmes? decision they are forced to lose that right.

Saint Augustine and the natural law would be critical of Holmes? decision because he, as a Son of God, is judging. By Holmes taking this matter into his own hands he is defying natural law. He should love all mankind thus thinking as if it was himself. Holmes obviously disapproves of people with disabilities that are not able to take care of themselves without the assistance of society. Augustine states,

?It is easy and simple to hate evil men because they are evil, but uncommon and dutiful to love them because they are men; thus, in one and the same person you disapprove the guilt and approve the nature, and you thereby hate the guilt with a more just reason because by it the nature which you love is defiled ( )?

He also feels that law has no morality, thus he must not force reconciliation between personal beliefs and legal opinions ( ). Another supporting detail to Holmes? decision is that he made a scientific jurisprudence. This in turn is stemmed from having the ?American Dream,? or the distinct American perspective. In Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville, he describes that Americans tend to not look upon history so that they can be successful. This is because of the movement out west in America and during this time one was able to be innovative and adapt to new self projected ideals ( ). Holmes father was an agnostic physician did not belief in a supreme being controlling life, but that life controlled itself. This led to the belief for both father and son that mortals have the ultimate control in life. This steers clearly away from what Augustine?s theory entails.

Holmes caused a big controversy with the way he used his judicial power. He ultimately looked over life and stayed content with the use of selfish motives. His possessive investment in people that we so called ?normal? influenced his inhumane decision. I personally don?t agree with Holmes and his jurisprudence. He used his power to manipulate the rights of human beings. By this, people with genetic defects were not allowed to conceive children because it would be best for the country if they had not. It is pretty unbelievable how selfish people can be. This is a clear example of how someone can be a complete totalitarian. I believe and support the ideals of Augustine, and feel that God is the strengthening body whether one shall live or die. Augustine made a magnificent statement when he said, ?Let nothing be done through the desire of hurting, but all through love of helping, and nothing will be done cruelly, inhumanly ( ).? In my eyes Holmes was not trying to help anyone but those that are selfish and consider themselves as stock. I don?t believe that by sterilizing those that have the genetic trait, that develops disabled offspring, will make this world a better place. I actually think that it will create more hate in the world. Hate because of the unjust rights handed down by those that claim they are superior of other human beings. How many people have you truly liked that thought they were so much better than you? And for those disabled people like Hellen Keller and Cardinal James Gibbon that support euthanasia is ridiculous. I really believe that it was more of an Anglo pride issue more than anything else in the decision of Holmes. The Act of 1924 was created so that it could save all of the ?good? Anglo people America had left. It is a shame that the President of the United States is self-proclaimed bigot. This kind of makes me wonder how the new President will be?

Overall I support the ideals of Augustine and what he stands behind. Holmes had more ?issues? than he could see and some people should not have that much power. I faithfully believe in the saying, what goes around comes around. Mill?s philosophy about utility is almost considered to be common sense in today?s society. We all know the difference between good and bad but like Augustine noted, it is the guilt that we feel that will affect us for the rest of our lives. People need to realize though it is harder to do right than wrong; doing right has ten times greater the reward.

Saint Augustine, ?Concerning: The City of God: against the Pagans. ? Pp. 282-296

William C. Starr. ?Kant, Mill, and the Supreme Principle of Morality.? Department of Philosophy: Marquette University, Pp. 23-29

Phillip M Thompson, ?Buck v. Bell and the Sterile Justice of Oliver Wendall Holmes,? Health Law LL.M. Thesis: DePaul University, 2000 Pp. 9-26