Harrot Posted October 6 Posted October 6 What's more, the proposal to eliminate “less human” undesirables, in the sense of “less good”, suffers from the bias of thinking that the “standard human” is good, and that only some of them contradict this behavior. In fact, when you look at the whole history of mankind, it's exactly the opposite: a violent, self-centered, xenophobic being that ravages everything it can. Only Christians (and some other minority) argues for a different kind of behavior that defines what a good man is. So, if the proposal is to use the Christian definition of the good man, in order to legitimize the murder of the “bad man”, this contradicts the Christian rules, which say exactly the opposite: Love your enemy, let the other kill you, and so on: Because real life is elsewhere, not on earth. But if the proposal is to use the evolutionary definition, i.e. the “good man” definition of material life, which says that “the best” remains in the end, we have nothing new. Animals fight for life and compete, leading in some cases to intraspecific killing. Here the proposal is to extend this behavior at a much larger scale... loosing probably a lot of genetic diversity because behaviour is probably not only linked to education. However, I see a difference with the natural process: here you are proposing a selection that could be called “intelligent design” and the “god” who would do the designing would be ... you. Sounds frightening for the survival of humanity. Joking aside: look at what intelligent human design has come up with :
swansont Posted October 8 Posted October 8 On 10/6/2024 at 7:58 AM, Harrot said: So, if the proposal is to use the Christian definition of the good man ! Moderator Note That was not the proposal, and preaching violates our rules. Leave religion out of discussions that aren’t about religion.
Recommended Posts