The "problem" of evil

Quote: rxwine

We may very well get a designer eugenics society,

Eugenics in any form is one of the stupidest, self-destructive ideas of humanity. It ranks near the top with religion.

Quote: FrGamble

You are very confused about how we are using morality here..

I'm not confused at ALL. There used to be
list of immoralities as long as your arm
that would get you into serious trouble.
We've moved on from that because most
moralities are not written in stone.

Women can be immodest today and still
be considered perfectly fine individuals.
It's a personal thing, it's not dictated by
the culture anymore. I saw two young
girls is shorty short shorts in the park
today and didn't think anything of it. Why
would I.

Quote: Nareed

Eugenics in any form is one of the stupidest, self-destructive ideas of humanity. It ranks near the top with religion.

I think you're taking too hard a line. But maybe we are not considering the same thing exactly.

One of our approaches in eliminating some diseases involves gene manipulation. Yes, that could improve society in my opinion. Getting rid of cystic fibrosis, through some eugenic method only has a down side if you actually kill off living people to do it.

Quote: FrGamble

Ok, this is just scary. Are you suggesting we kill off people you don't consider smart?

Did I say that, Adolf? We already have it,
people are having designer babies. Who
would have a low IQ dimwit if they could
pick one with potential. You don't know
how many people have these idiot offspring
still living at home at 40. No job, no
education, no ambition. I know several
people like that, and even more in my past.

Quote: Nareed

I don't think Francis I would appreciate having one of his subjects call his kingdom "barbarian."

Do you think that morality can change depending on circumstances, who is in power, who I popular, or what someone might think is best for them? If you do then I think he would simply call you wrong.

Quote: pew

It rains on the just and the unjust

Just reminded of the above again. Came across this tonight.

Quote:

Addicted to the thrill of this job. I own the night. I love my Country, Texas, Family, God, Friends, and Sports! Don't Tread on Me! 'Merica

 Fort Worth, Texas

 Joined March 2012

Quote:

Patrick Zamarripa ‏@PatrickEZ01 · Jul 4

Happy Birthday to the greatest country on the face of this planet. My beloved America!
2,534 retweets 4,673 likes

 Reply
 Retweet

2.5K

One of the officers shot in Dallas.

https://twitter.com/patrickez01

Quote: rxwine

I think you're taking too hard a line.

On purpose.

Quote:

One of our approaches in eliminating some diseases involves gene manipulation. Yes, that could improve society in my opinion. Getting rid of cystic fibrosis, through some eugenic method only has a down side if you actually kill off living people to do it.

That sounds very good. But there's much we don't know about genetics, and it would be folly to start messing with our genes in-embryo as yet.

Many genetic diseases persist in recessive genes because having one copy of the gene is beneficial, but having two nets you an often deadly disease. For example, if you have one gene for sickle-cell anemia, you are more resistant than others to the malarial parasite. Similarly one Ty-Sachs gene offers protection against tuberculosis.

We can say "we have drugs against tuberculosis and malaria isn't much of a problem in the developed world, so let's get rid of those bad genes once and for all."

Aside the fact drug resistant malaria and tuberculosis could become huge problems, we don't know for sure what else those genes do. It's likely you won't have deleterious effects if we remove them from the human genome, and that's true for other disease-related genes. But there are a lot of them. A small chance per gene turns into a huge chance if you mess with enough genes.

Next, what other things might we be tempted to eradicate from the genome? Short stature? Nearsightedness? Black skin? White skin? And what effects would removing such genes have?

I favor couples at risk of conceiving children with a genetic disease using in-vitro methods and screening embryos prior to implantation for harmful, known genetic combinations. But that's a far cry from modifying the human genome at large.

Quote: FrGamble

Do you think that morality can change depending on circumstances, who is in power, who I popular, or what someone might think is best for them? If you do then I think he would simply call you wrong.

I'm saying Christianity in general and your splinter in particular do just that on a regular basis.

Check out where most planned parenthood clinics are located. Very logical if you want to limit a certain groups reproducing. Not feeding the breeders during a famine is a very logical and effective way of reducing the excess population which benefits the rest. Sterilizing the imbeciles and layabouts would save the working productive taxpayers plenty. All these things are logical common sense solutions that are very effective in bettering society. They are pragmatic and moral. At least if we keep morality nice and fluid, pragmatic= moral, moral= pragmatic.

Quote: Nareed

I'm saying Christianity in general and your splinter in particular do just that on a regular basis.

This article covers everything we're discussing.
Highlights:

"The Catholic Church once taught that it was morally acceptable to arrest people believed to be heretics, to torture them until they confessed and accused others of the same crime, and then to seize their property. Does it still teach this?"

"The Catholic Church once taught that it was morally acceptable to enslave people for being non-Christians, take their land, and consign them to lifelong servitude. Does it still teach this?"

A Catholic apologist responded:

"The Church delineates between moral issues of the day, which must be taken on a case by case basis and sweeping declarations that are intrinsic to our nature, such as two guys having sex. In your three examples above, none of them are ex cathedra statements about universal morality."

The author replied:

"What he’s arguing, basically, is that the church has changed its mind about minor things, like whether heretics should be tortured or burned at the stake, whether the church should censor the printing of books, whether people should be sold into perpetual slavery, whether societies should be ruled by kings and priests – but not about the important stuff, like whether a same-sex couple should be able to file federal taxes jointly... Ironically, when they engage in philosophical gyrations like these, these Catholic apologists are implicitly defending moral relativism, the idea that the ethical standards of right and wrong change with time and place. They can’t bear to admit that these past popes were mistaken – that torture, slavery and theocracy are wrong, always have been wrong and always will be wrong – because that would ruin their assertion that the church is a timeless, changeless truth-telling thing."

Morality is a moving target but the Church
will never admit it. They defend moral
relativism and with the other side of their
mouths say they aren't. Typical.

There's more, read the rest of it here.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2013/08/moral-relativism-in-the-catholic-church/