regshoe

Ah, okay! I won't wait, then, but since it’s short, I might proofread it later anyway. Actually, if you had praised it to the skies, I would probably have waited to read it! : ) Delayed gratification, that's me…

What books are you thinking of digitizing after Chantemerle? If you want to tell me, that is. : )

An unjustified leap from 'is' to 'ought'.
I would have thought the eugenics scientists might have argued something along the lines of: Science says that health is partly genetically determined. Healthy people are happier and can contribute more to society, which are morally good things. Therefore we should only allow people to have children if they are healthy, and not allow bad genes to remain in the gene pool. That is, they were also using both moral judgement and science. But this is just me trying to reconstruct their arguments, maybe they actually were arguing from ‘is’ to ‘ought’?

The magisteria are Science and Ethics
This seems much more reasonable to me!