The "problem" of evil

Quote: pew

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.

Actually, the extremes of what you're talking about don't seem to get wholly approved in democracies. Our abortion is very limited in the US.

But look in more dictorial, totalitarian, and less democratic societies and find that your ideas have to generally be forced on people. Take China's one child policy just as one example.

I consider it evidence your ideas are not morally pragmatic at all. Not if the population gets to fully evaluate them.

Quote: Nareed

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?

You know this is the universal complaint against scientific advancement. Nearly every advance has some terrible downside possibilities and can be misused.

Maybe one day, we find a way to travel successfully to some distant stars in a reasonable time period. At the same time, we may have discovered a terrible new power for destruction in doing so.

Quote: Evenbob

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?"

Heresy at the time was a state crime that was punished by and carried out by the state.

Quote:

"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?"

Of course not and the Church never said it was morally acceptable to enslave people for being non-Christian.

Quote:

"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."

The Church is, but as he points out popes are not.

Quote:

They defend moral
relativism and with the other side of their
mouths say they aren't.

No one can reasonably defend moral relativism. Things like slavery or torture are always and everywhere and in every time wrong no matter what Church or pope might say differently.

Quote: FrGamble

The Church is, but as he points out popes are not.

Popes are the Church. God speaks thru them
(or so they say), that's the whole point.

Morality is a moving target, the history of
the Church verifies it.

Quote: rxwine

You know this is the universal complaint against scientific advancement. Nearly every advance has some terrible downside possibilities and can be misused.

I'm not against genetic engineering, even of people. I'm against knee-jerk genetic engineering of people when we don't know enough about the possible consequences. We have lots of genes, and we don't know what each they all do, in what combination, etc.

Look, when the internal combustion engine first came up, it was widely regarded as clean, and a benefit to air quality.

Well, it was, compared to what came before. Horses, and mules, produced a much more tangible form of pollution than cars and trucks. And the people at the time had no reason for supposing in the near future cars and trucks would become so cheap, there'd be almost one per inhabitant.

We don't have that excuse, because we have many of the earlier examples to learn from.

Quote:

Maybe one day, we find a way to travel successfully to some distant stars in a reasonable time period. At the same time, we may have discovered a terrible new power for destruction in doing so.

We have :)

Antimatter might well prove to be an excellent portable energy source for interstellar travel. But as of now, it's too expensive. And very likely it will always take a lot more energy to produce than it can deliver.

Quote: FrGamble

No one can reasonably defend moral relativism. Things like slavery or torture are always and everywhere and in every time wrong no matter what Church or pope might say differently.

So no one should defend moral relativism or moral subjectivism, but when the church does it, it doesn't matter?

You'd think nothing the Church does has anything to do with Jehovah and/or Jesus.

Quote: rxwine

Actually, the extremes of what you're talking about don't seem to get wholly approved in democracies. Our abortion is very limited in the US.

But look in more dictorial, totalitarian, and less democratic societies and find that your ideas have to generally be forced on people. Take China's one child policy just as one example.

I consider it evidence your ideas are not morally pragmatic at all. Not if the population gets to fully evaluate them.

The point is the logical and pragmatic basis for a Godless morality is trumped by a morality that comes from somewhere else. Where does it come from? P.P. does a lot more than just abortions, that's just their bread and butter. See who their clientele is. It's a prime example of pragmatic morality

Quote: pew

See who their clientele is. It's a prime example of pragmatic morality

Women.

You put public health facilities in the densest population areas if you can because it makes the most sense. But in the case of PP centers you can only put them where anti-abortion people haven't managed to get them prohibited.

You also don't put them in rich neighborhoods because those people can drive elsewhere to get abortions. Or they can afford private services.

Quote: FrGamble

Heresy at the time was a state crime that was punished by and carried out by the state.

The church and the state were full partners in heresy law and enforcement.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy_in_Christianity

The church instructed the state to create these laws. Is there any instance of the church condemning these laws?

No one should defend moral relativism or moral subjectivism, period.