Let's imagine person X with the world's best genes for ethical character. Person X shares 99.5 percent of her genes with person Y and 99 percent of her genes with person Z. But X shares nearly all her best character genes with Z while Y has two mutations that have a high probability of causing major evils.
By ethical character, I do not mean individuals prone to misplaced altruism and establishment respectable egoism. I do not mean those the mass media worship. I mean someone who reasons well and acts on well-reasoned ethical conclusions.
Person X would be right to help Z reproduce, before helping Y reproduce, though she shares more genes with Y, all else being equal. Genes for earlobes and other non-moral traits should not matter to us, except when they affect health. In short, we should care most about health and character related genes when making reproductive decisions, not overall genetic similarity of junk genes and other unimportant genes.
If high IQs make individuals more ethical, then we should support IQ eugenics for ethical reasons. If it is someday proven that genotypic IQs above 150 cause sufficient harms or insufficient benefits, then we should reduce the birth rates of above 150 IQ individuals.
Some individuals might select for genes related to beauty and other traits, but there is no moral imperative for doing so. In many cases, selection for non-moral traits could lead to mutually destructive status competitions, for example, producing millions of extra tall athletes, having health problems, competing for a handful of professional sports jobs.
We would be more right to help some peaceful cetaceans than nonwhites waging demographic and other unconventional wars against whites, though we share more genes with nonwhites than cetaceans.
The above is not an argument for whites to breed with nonwhites. Why? Biracial children have more health and behavior problems. Mixed race children adopt the dominant culture of anti-white bigotry. Mixed race children cause massive harms to their white parents and whites in general. They often make a white parent's life living hell. They're not bundles of joy when they become teenagers. Biracial children do not respect the difficult task of improving Western Civilization. Every land dominated by biracial individuals is or was a divide-and-rule disaster. Parents are more cruel to mixed race children once the warm, fuzzy multicultural superiority feelings wear off. Parents care about children in proportion to how closely related the children are to the parents. Mixed race children, having black fathers, are born out of wedlock and abandoned by their fathers overwhelmingly often.
And it is no argument for nonwhite immigration, since almost all conscious, nonwhite adults support anti-white totalitarianism, plus multiracial states are almost always long-term disasters.
White women can almost always find a healthy, higher character white man or sperm sample to breed with if they make an honest effort to do so. White men without decent white women should not breed in Western countries or should do so by sperm donation. In most cases, the problem is lack of effort. Most whites who make an good effort to interact with thousands of other whites, and ask many whites on dates, will find decent to excellent spouses.
What about rights? A legal right to miscegenation exists in many countries. That does not make it a moral right. No moral right to cause self and others undeserved harms exists. A key point about well-reasoned moral claims is that they override other claims. For example, saving a good life overrides the right to make a good painting.