and other times, MD&D creeps me out...

[_Darth J]

So since I am simply using different words for the same concept, I take it you would have no objection to the following statements:

--"Jesus Christ died for our social taboos."

--"In order to repent properly, we need to meet with priesthood leaders and confess our social taboos."

You are mixing language games. What you are saying is like "UCLA's football team lost to USC by 25 baskets". Not the best analogy- but essentially these are category errors.

Nope. You explained "sin" in terms of social utility and survival of the species.

[_asbestosman]

Here we go again. You think I don't know this?

And all the articles, the comments here, and everyone who knows about it condemns it, right?

Have you seen ONE person PRAISE the idea of eugenics publicly?

What would happen if someone did?

Case closed.

I think that by focusing on the biggest horrors of Nazi Germany you missed the more realistic and frightening possibility of forced sterilization. I have heard people mention forced sterilization for those on government aid. Do I think you support even that? No. Absolutely not.

What I want you to discuss is the idea of societal good vs things like an individual's autonomy. Where do you see the trade-off? We know you don't condone eugenics. I can't speak for others, but what I'd like to know is on what basis you oppose eugenics even though one might argue it is for societal good. I believe you would reject those arguments as would I. I just want to know how you do so in the context of your framework.

What do you consider to be societal good? What kind of things are okay to do in the name of societal good and what things are not? We believe in incarceration for some activities, but not for others even though some we do not punish may have an effect on societal good.

[_asbestosman]

If you don't think brothers and sisters should produce children together, you are a eugenicist to some degree. Maybe that will finally make my point.

I've brought up the point about interfering in incest before. I think it's a point that has its place.

However, I think you guys are losing focus of why eugenics was brought up. It was more in the context of forced sterilization--and that being justified by utility theories of ethics.

In this case I support prohibitions on incest because reasonable alternatives exist for each of the individuals involved. The harm done to their autonomy by the prohibition is small because of the number of alternatives, while the harm done to their incestuous offspring would be relatively large compared to the harm done to their autonomy.

[_sock puppet]

If you want to interfere with someone else's reproductive choices then you have a problem.

I interfere with people's reproductive choices all of the time by denying them sex with me. Do you believe it is not so?

I don't doubt this. I'm sure that whomever you are in real life, you've turned me down repeatedly.

[_Quasimodo]

There is nothing wrong with aiming for a healthy society. If people had the choice (and it may not be all that far off) to choose zygotes with a superior set of immunities or physical attributes, then many people would opt for the superior zygotes. Already, we do screenings of different types and have identified many problematic genes. Combine that with epigenetics and eugenics has taken a whole new turn.

This might be a good point. People making choices about the "quality" of children they bear.

The trouble with the whole topic of eugenics is that to do it on a meaningful scale, someone (other than the participants) needs to decide who will mate with who based on some desired criteria.

This has been done on a fairly large scale, already (dwarfing any attempt by the Nazi regime).

In the late 1700's and early 1800's there were many very profitable slave breeding farms in the Southern US and places like Haiti and Jamaica.

I understand they were not very nice places. The "less desirable" breeding stock was done away with to save the money in feeding them.

Eugenics will always carry this taint. I don't think it's going to be a viable system anytime in the future.

[_beastie]

Such brilliance.

Ok I've got it. Glad you all set me straight. The existence of predatory behavior, which if you have not noticed, mostly lands you in jail nowadays, proves that civilization did not evolve, and has no survival value whatsoever.

Gosh, why didn't I think of that?

Bye now.

What the heck?

This reply is so full of fantastic leaps that I'm just going to ignore it and more carefully explain why I objected to your first quoted post.

MF

A moral life is more peaceful and conducive to long term survival of the species than an immoral life.

The problem is that a "moral life" is so open to interpretation. Most LDS would not consider a life that entails fornication to be a moral life, yet there really isn't any problem inherent in fornication that renders it less conducive to "long term survival of the species."

If we are drinking and driving, our lives will not be pleasant or long. We will not survive long. If we cheat on our wives, life gets complicated- divorce, children out of wedlock, fewer two-parent families, children raised not as well or efficiently as they might be etc.

Here's the main problem with your assertion, in my view. The pleasantry of life doesn't directly correlate to success at survival and reproduction. (bear with me while I anthropomorphize genes) Our genes don't particularly care if we're "happy", if our life is "pleasant" or conflict-free. Our genes only care that we survive long enough to reproduce as often as possible.

There are certainly some clear-cut examples, like drinking and driving, that can't be contested. However, there are far more examples that demonstrate the problematic nature of your assertion. One quick case in point, obvious throughout the world, much to the dismay of “nice guys”: Some of the most successful male reproducers are the most manipulative and dishonest among us. Some of the meanest people among us live the longest.

All these "sins" lead to a shortened life and a less than optimal life style. That is the meaning of "the wages of sin are death".

No, they don’t. Some do, no doubt. But many do not, and here, again, it all depends on how you define “sin”. But I would think that anyone would agree that treating people manipulatively, dishonestly, taking advantage of those less fortunate, should count as “sins”. But lots of people who engage in that sort of behavior lead “optimal” lives in terms of the evolutionary mandate: survive and reproduce.

We are saved from these sins by expelling them from our lives- in other words, by "repentance and righteous living". "The natural man is an enemy to God". We must overcome our more base impulses and live in a "civilized" way which is what is required for the optimal society.

Once again, the devil’s in the details. Is homosexual sex a “sin”? Is fornication a “sin”? Sometimes? Always?

This life is simply the best that humans can have. That is why living morally "works" and is "true". It defines itself that way. It is considered "moral" and "civilized" because it is the best lifestyle humans have

These become what we can call "moral absolutes" because they absolutely always work for the survival of the species.

No, they do not “always work for the survival of the species.”

There have been studies into the productivity of different sorts of moral behavior. One of the findings has been that “tit for tat” is the most effective in terms of long-term survival of the entire group. Yet “tit for tat” isn’t what Christians would call “optimal”. Others studies have shown that, even within a “tit for tat” society, a minority of individuals can thrive using very predatory and manipulative tactics.


by the way, you’ve been very quick to snark in your replies here. I understand that it’s easy for a believer to feel picked on here, and sometimes they are. But there have been serious objections to your assertions, which in your rush to snark, you have dismissed without warrant.

[_asbestosman]

Eugenics (historically): treating people like animals.
PETA: Treating animals like people.

[_mfbukowski]

Precisely what behaviors are "moral" and which are not may be interesting questions, as is the question of how far we can go morally before we infringe on the rights of others.

But that was not what my post on the other board was about.

My reason for posting here was merely to point out that civilization, law, and consideration for the rights of others, and for that matter even the whole notion that others have "rights" is more conducive to general peace, happiness and a long and productive life than is continuous interpersonal fighting and brutal behavior. And also that such a life has "survival value" and that generally, populations which are civilized will have a longer life span than those who are not.

And I am postulating that that is "true" in something like an "absolute" sense, for all civilized societies vs all uncivilized ways of life.

That is what I meant by the idea that "morals have survival value".

The fact that anyone would dispute that seems pretty darn silly to me.

If they think they can live without civilization, I propose we drop them naked in the Gobi desert and see how well they do.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Oh good. So you are admitting that you totally misunderstood me when you started the thread.

My favorite part is when you invoked the Nazis, but back paddled with a, " Oh! I knew that all along!" when that blew up in your face.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Yes. Yes. Yes. Missing the point about eugenics.

Wasting your keystrokes here, if Emily wants to ignore everything that goes into what eugenics actually means in it’s proper historical context and how it was used, so she can reduce it to wanting healthy babies, it’s probably a good sign your dealin’ with Stem’s third cousin from his brother‘s side.