E
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I am making no absolute claim about human cloning being “on the list”. But however this list is constructed, genocide ought to be higher on the list than human cloning. There has been no proof that it is even possible with humans - only extrapolations from questionable results with sheep and such. It is also irrelevant because it does not distinguish one party or person from another. But genocide we know is possible, because it has been done. And since you admit that a hypothetical is relevant (human cloning) you have to admit the possibility of genocide becoming a real issue too. What if we are called to intervene in a genocide somewhere in the world? Wouldn’t it be important to know that those with the responsibility of making that decision believe that genocide cannot be approved? This issue is likely to come up sooner than human cloning.
And genocide is just one other intrinsic evil. I focus on it because it is “pre-qualified” by Ender as such. We could talk about torture, human dignity, and many others. The five issues mentioned are all important issues, but there is nothing to absolutely distinguish these five from some others (and no, I don’t mean the minimum wage or social security, so don’t drag out those Strawmen.)
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Remote material cooperation is not always a problem.
G
gracepoole
Guest
This is yet another problem with this list. If one is knowledgeable about genocide (as in, one has studied it, its causes, areas where it is currently a problem and where it is likely to spring up, how geography and economics play into its creation, etc.), one can likely determine whether a party’s policies will lead to genocide or not work to stop genocide. Of course no party is going to list “genocide” in its platform. That’s not the point. A party may still create or not work to stop genocide without publicly saying so in a stump speech by virtue of the policies it embraces.
E
Ender
Guest
The “list” is not simply a collection of intrinsic evils; that would be rather pointless. It is a list of those things that are both political issues and intrinsically evil. Genocide is not a political issue hence it does not make the list.
It is not just the cloning that is opposed but the research that would be needed to accomplish it. It is opposed for the same reason ESCR is opposed. Of course it cannot be done yet. This is because the research to discover an effective process has - so far - been banned.
First, this would be an argument as to why cloning should not be on the list; it is not an argument for why genocide should be included. Second, this doesn’t appear to be quite accurate inasmuch as cloning is closely tied to ESCR, which is also on the list and does distinguish one party from the other.
Try this: ask “Is therapeutic cloning legal” and check the answer Yahoo gives, which is this:* Yes, especially experimentation regarding therapeutic uses of cloning, which is the primary purpose of stem cell research.
*
Murder is possible as well. Neither of them is on the list because neither of them is a political issue.
The research required to advance human cloning is not hypothetical. It is a political issue today, as is demonstrated by the number of countries and states that have enacted laws to control it. Nor do I admit that genocide could ever become a political issue because it seems impossible to me that any politician would ever publicly support it.
If genocide ever becomes a political question you may add it to the list. Inasmuch as human cloning has already become a political issue it belongs on the list.
You may talk about whatever you please so long as you recognize that what distinguishes these issues from all those not on the list is this: they are political issues, the others are not.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
This is true: it is morally permissible when a sufficient reason exists, although when such cooperation is frequent a proportionally graver reason is required. Achieving ones political goals has never seemed quite sufficient to me.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
I agree with this: no party is going to come out in support of genocide. At a minimum this distinguishes it from those items on the list where the parties have taken explicit positions. It’s a bit awkward isn’t it, supporting people who explicitly support evil all the while trying to make the case that the other is the party of evil?
Ender
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
When it comes to human cloning, you are quite willing to make connections. You say human cloning is closely related to ESCR. So while politicians are not directly addressing human cloning, they are addressing ESCR, and that makes ESCR political, and by extension, human cloning is political. However, as gracepoole pointed out, genocide has connections too. It is related to economics and politics of other nations where genocide is likely to spring up. Foreign policy issues are certainly political issues, and those same foreign policy issues can be determinative in opposing genocide. So while no US politician today is calling for us to adopt a policy of genocide, the political decisions they make do connect to genocide - in the same way that ESCR connects to human cloning. This makes genocide just as much of a voting concern as human cloning.
E
Ender
Guest
No, I am saying human cloning is a political issue. That is demonstrated by the fact that laws have been passed regulating it. It is rather inextricably tied to ESCR and a lot of the research tied to the one is equally tied to the other. It is not an issue that may become political in the future. It is an issue now.
No, this is a false connection, and one significant difference is this: you may choose to charge someone with supporting genocide because you disagree with his policies, but that is a very different thing than a person publicly advocating for genocide. You’ve seen lynnvinc’s posts on global warming. There seems little doubt but that she feels “deniers” could be charged with supporting genocide, but that is because she feels their policies will result in massive deaths, not because anyone actually supports such a result. This is all you’re doing here. Surely you can distinguish between someone who welcomes the evil his policies will accomplish, and someone who supports a policy he believes is a good one which you believe will turn out badly.
The difference between advocating evil and making bad choices ought to be obvious. In any event, arguing that human cloning should not be on the list is still no argument that other issues should be.
Ender
P
pnewton
Guest
This list isn’t exhaustive, nor are these items all intrinsic evils. For example, homosexual conduct is an intrinsic evil. However, in a pluralistic society, one can believe that we should not make homosexual conduct illegal. Likewise, we might believe that we should also not criminalize all sexual conduct outside of one’s first marriage. We probably all agree on this, even though the conduct is intrinsically evil. So, should we allow no-fault divorce and re-marriage? Again in a pluralistic society, we may still deem such an allowance as prudent, even though the action is intrinsically immoral.
Like I said earlier, moral theology is more complicated that simple slogans used to get voters in line.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If ESCR is your sole justification for human cloning being on the list of the five non-negotiable issues, I will just point out that ESCR is already on the list. What is the justufication for a separate mention of human cloning, which, apart from its link with ESCR, is not a political issue. Why not also mention research into regenerative spinal cords from ESCs? Or a host of other issues that tie into ESCR?
E
Ender
Guest
You are arguing a point that is not particularly relevant I suspect in order to ignore the one that is. That list is made up of political issues that involve grave, intrinsic evil. Even if your point was correct that human cloning doesn’t belong on the list, it hardly matters. All of the items on that list are supported by one party and opposed by the other. Whether the list is four or five items long the distinction remains; the choice for Catholics is as problematic with four as with five.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Which of the five is not intrinsically evil?
In this case the simple slogan conveys a moral truth. That’s why it is effective.
Ender
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
OK, then let’s look at same sex marriage. It is on the list, but tolerance of homosexual acts is not on the list? Why? Homosexual acts are the heart of why same sex marriage is intrinsically evil. And at times past there were sodomy laws that regulated homosexual acts. Therefore sodomy laws are political. And they oppose an intrinsic evil. Yet tolerance of homosexual acts is not on the list. I admit it is hard to find a politician who is calling for a return to anti-sodomy laws. But if one such politician did appear, would I be obligated not to vote for his opponent who does favors allowing homosexuals to do their thing in private?
E
Ender
Guest
I know you can understand this point even though your arguments continually ignore it: for something to be on the list it must satisfy at least these two criteria: it must involve acts that are intrinsically, and it must be a current political issue. Since there is no political drive to make homosexual acts illegal one can hardly consider it a political issue.
Well there you go. Since no politicians are calling for a return to anti-sodomy laws this is not currently a political issue, and it therefore does not belong on the list.
Not necessarily. There is no requirement to support a law just because it is intended to prohibit sin.*Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like. *(Aquinas ST II-II 10 11 ad 1)
Ender
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
So, if we ever get to a point where abortion is so widely accepted that there are no politicians calling for prohibitions against abortion, we can strike abortion off the list because is would no longer be a political issue? This just shows that the “list” is quite arbitrary and tied to current events much more than to unchanging dogma.
That sounds like an excellent case for not getting too upset about same-sex marriage, and so, removing it from the list. How is same-sex marriage so much more “grievious” than sodomy?
E
Ender
Guest
Of course the list is tied to current events. It is a voting guide, not a moral treatise. This is why slavery isn’t there.
Same sex “marriage” affects and changes the perception of marriage as an institution. It is gravely harmful to society inasmuch as it damages the most basic unit on which all society is built. The effects of sodomy are primarily individual.
Once again, however, your objections are mostly obfuscations, attempts to diminish the negative impact on a particular party because of the immoral nature of some of its political choices. I understand your problem. It isn’t always easy to get people to ignore the fact that in order, say, to get their immigration policies enacted they have to compromise a little, and accept abortion as not too high a price to pay. It is reasonable not to want people to make that connection, but the problem remains.
Ender
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It seems to me that societal tolerance of sodomy is at least as destructive to the perception of sex and marriage as allowing two men to live in the same house and file a joint tax return. Don’t get me wrong. Both are bad. But I can see someone deciding to care more about a homeless shelter than who gets a marriage license.
I thought you said that you don’t spend any time pondering what motivates people to do what they do. You sure do spend time pondering my motives.
E
Ender
Guest
K
kozlosap
Guest
Don’t get me wrong. Both are bad. But I can see someone deciding to care more about a homeless shelter than who gets a marriage license.
I thought you said that you don’t spend any time pondering what motivates people to do what they do. You sure do spend time pondering my motives.
Since many straight couples indulge in anal sex, it can not be looked upon as a strictly gay issue.
- Status