|
| Thread: To donate or not to donate? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 21, 2008 03:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't think cloning would be a good solution -- are we going to harvest humans like we harvest corn?
Why not, if we created them for that purpose? It would be no different from harvesting cattle.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 21, 2008 03:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why not, if we created them for that purpose? It would be no different from harvesting cattle.
I knew slavery would return sometime (also I said corn not cattle, I am against treating animals like personal objects  )
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2008 03:32 PM |
|
|
It's not slavery for the same reason that raising cattle is not slavery. You obviously think otherwise, though.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 21, 2008 03:35 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 15:36, 21 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
It's not slavery for the same reason that raising cattle is not slavery. You obviously think otherwise, though.
Who said raising cattle is not slavery for animals, especially if treated badly "only for that purpose".
But let's get back to what you said:Quote:
Why not, if we created them for that purpose?
All masters think that they slaves live for that purpose -- to serve. Why is this any different than slavery?
it's actually worse because you kill them in a way
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 21, 2008 03:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Who said raising cattle is not slavery for animals
Someone from PETA no doubt.
You can't enslave chattel. Nor can you murder it.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2008 03:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why is this any different than slavery?
Because this is like embryonic stem cell research - but the next step. Slaves are different because they're born as regular humans, and are alive and walking around. Clones, on the other hand, if created for medical purposes, are never born in the first place. On the other hand, clones created for reproductive purposes should be given the same rights as anybody else.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 21, 2008 04:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because this is like embryonic stem cell research - but the next step.
So? Who says next steps have no flaws?
Quote:
Clones, on the other hand, if created for medical purposes, are never born in the first place.
Creation is similar to being born, or what do you mean by 'born'? You can't give a human/clone a 'purpose' because he is not a tool.
anyway this is an off topic subject so I will not comment on this further.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 21, 2008 04:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
anyway this is an off topic subject so I will not comment on this further.
You and mvass always tend to "fight" and get off-topic
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2008 05:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Who says next steps have no flaws?
WWho syas that they do?
Quote:
Creation is similar to being born, or what do you mean by 'born'?
By creation I meant conception. It's like an embryo in a womb, but instead it's clones of various stages in whatever they'd hold them in.
Quote:
You can't give a human/clone a 'purpose' because he is not a tool.
Clones might be biologically human, but so are many other things, so that's not an argument. And if clones are created for a purpose, then they can be tools. If they're not walking about, then they're tools.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 21, 2008 05:11 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 17:15, 21 Jun 2008.
|
This really puzzled me:
Quote:
Clones might be biologically human, but so are many other things, so that's not an argument.
What other things? I mean, if you're talking about morality, then of course they're human -- much like you are. Just because 'they will die anyway' is not an excuse -- we all die anyway so why can't we kill ourselves? Seriously now, are you suggesting that since they are "inferior" (much like babies are, for example, btw we all were once that way!) we can mess with them? That's how master-slave relationship works. They decide for the inferior. And actually, not only decide, but the strong profit from the inferior. This disrespect for life itself is incomprehensible to me.
Quote:
And if clones are created for a purpose, then they can be tools.
Like I said, slaves were meant to live for a purpose (or so the masters thought) -- they had no other reason to exist.
I guess in a way this is worse than abortion -- in abortion you at least don't want the child. Here, you intentionally kill it because you intentionally give life to it. 
Are you claiming that life at this earliest stage is too weak or undeveloped, too lacking in mental or physical abilities, to have full human worth or human rights? To claim that our rights depend on such factors is to deny that human beings have human dignity, that we have inherent value simply by being members of the human family.
If fundamental rights such as the right to life are based on abilities or qualities that can appear or disappear, and be greater or lesser in different human beings (or 'stages' in life), then there are no inherent human rights, no true human equality, only privileges for the strong.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2008 05:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What other things?
Human corpses, detached human body parts, etc.
Quote:
I mean, if you're talking about morality, then of course they're human
Here's one example of a flaw in traditional morality. Traditional morality is a complicated thing, but it ultimately stems from doing good for society (or, at least, not harming it). But along the way, a lot of extra stuff was added to morality. Perhaps in needs to return to its original purpose. As these clones are not members of society, then the morals that refer to members of society shouldn't apply to them.
Quote:
Seriously now, are you suggesting that since they are "inferior" (much like babies are, for example, btw we all were once that way!) we can mess with them?
"Inferior" is not a very good term to use in this case. The fact is that they may be created specifically for organ harvesting, in which case they'd probably not be viable anyway. But, if they were, I'd say that it would be wrong to kill a fully functional potential human, that is, if he/she had a functional brain, heart, etc. But if it's a brainless thing, then it's no more than a human vegetable.
Quote:
Like I said, slaves were meant to live for a purpose (or so the masters thought) -- they had no other reason to exist.
But they are not created specifically for that purpose.
Quote:
Are you claiming that life at this earliest stage is too weak or undeveloped, too lacking in mental or physical abilities, to have full human worth or human rights?
No. What I'm saying is that these things, though they have human genes, would not necessarily be able to be actual functioning humans. It's like a brain-dead organ donor, only here you're creating the donor in the first place.
What I'm saying is that you're correct as long as the clone is basically the same as a normal human. But if it's an organ farm, then no.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted June 21, 2008 06:01 PM |
|
|
soory for the spam but...
...OMG, the Quote Wars have started again!!! <*flees*>
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 21, 2008 06:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Here's one example of a flaw in traditional morality. Traditional morality is a complicated thing, but it ultimately stems from doing good for society (or, at least, not harming it).
I absolutely have no idea where you get this stuff. Are you saying that the right to life, equality, are for the good of society? Morals, especially considering LIFE and freedom, have nothing to do with 'society' in any real sense. If 10 people are 'harming' the society (or so says the government) does that mean we can kill them (they didn't kill, remember "harming the society" is pretty subjective). We need to respect life and freedom and treat everyone equally if we expect it from them.
Quote:
As these clones are not members of society, then the morals that refer to members of society shouldn't apply to them.
Who decides whether someone is part of the society or not? The law? The government? They can as well say that black people, or gay people, are not part of the society -- they are lesser beings that are 'disposable', etc. In fact this has already happened in the past. We either take absolutely everything into account when we consider 'equality' or none at all.
Quote:
"Inferior" is not a very good term to use in this case.
Well actually if you don't take it literally. People in the past have said black people are inferior. If they could, I'm pretty sure they would use them as "organ harvesters" or "research in the name of progress". I'm very against experiments or so called 'research' when it involves someone else (and this also includes experiments that drain very much energy or cause pollution); where is the "do what you want as long as you don't harm others" principle?
Quote:
The fact is that they may be created specifically for organ harvesting, in which case they'd probably not be viable anyway.
I say it's completely wrong to create them in the first place.
Quote:
But they are not created specifically for that purpose.
Oh, some were. And does that matter at all? It's again the difference from tools. That's one step away from creating normal humans (whatever that means) and put a stamp on them: "slave" because then it's ok since we created them for that purpose?
Just because you give life to something does not give you the right to take it or use it in whatever way you want. You need responsibility.
Quote:
What I'm saying is that you're correct as long as the clone is basically the same as a normal human. But if it's an organ farm, then no.
Eh, isn't that similar to the 'farm' in the Matrix? Yes I know the reasons behind that farm were ridiculous (human energy) but I think the point is solid.
Does a mother have the right to decide about her child, kill him, or do whatever with him, because 'she created him for that purpose' (or at least she claims that). Don't reply with 'the law' or whatever, those are flawed and in fact were also racist in the past, much as now we are 'discriminatory' against those weaker than us.
Quote:
...OMG, the Quote Wars have started again!!! <*flees*>
Hehe sorry for ruining this thread 
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 21, 2008 06:24 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 19:34, 21 Jun 2008.
|
You really should create a new thread named "Cloning humans" or something like that instead of going off-topic here
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2008 06:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Are you saying that the right to life, equality, are for the good of society?
Yes, they are. They are to discourage people from infringing on others' life.
Quote:
If 10 people are 'harming' the society (or so says the government) does that mean we can kill them (they didn't kill, remember "harming the society" is pretty subjective).
It's not like that. It's more of these kinds of actions being discouraged, and a social stigma being put on them.
Quote:
Who decides whether someone is part of the society or not?
Society consists of all individuals that are alive and interacting with other individuals.
Quote:
People in the past have said black people are inferior. If they could, I'm pretty sure they would use them as "organ harvesters" or "research in the name of progress".
Yes, but they didn't create black people expressly for that purpose.
Quote:
where is the "do what you want as long as you don't harm others" principle?
This doesn't conflict with that principle, because these clones are non-viable things in their stasis chambers (or wherever you hold them).
Quote:
I say it's completely wrong to create them in the first place.
I obviously disagree.
Quote:
That's one step away from creating normal humans (whatever that means) and put a stamp on them: "slave" because then it's ok since we created them for that purpose?
But these clones are not normal humans. They are things with human organs, and incapable of living independently of their life suppport. They're essentially in a persistent vegitative state.
Quote:
Just because you give life to something does not give you the right to take it or use it in whatever way you want.
There's a difference between a normal human life and other kinds of life.
Quote:
Eh, isn't that similar to the 'farm' in the Matrix?
I never watched "The Matrix", so I don't understand your analogy.
Quote:
Does a mother have the right to decide about her child, kill him, or do whatever with him, because 'she created him for that purpose'
No, because there is no fundamental difference between the child and the mother. Both are equally human. A clone used for organ purposes is not.
Quote:
...OMG, the Quote Wars have started again!!! <*flees*>
Run for your lives!
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 21, 2008 07:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, they are. They are to discourage people from infringing on others' life.
Harvesting infringes on the life of the harvested. If you say they're different, you bet they are, but that way we can say black people are different or gay people are different -- that doesn't mean they deserve less 'rights' especially the right to life? I mean, this basic right is supposed to be the most important of all. Society is not a person, there's no 'good' for it or 'bad' for it, people DEFINE THAT (i.e what's good and what's bad).
Quote:
Society consists of all individuals that are alive and interacting with other individuals.
So it's ok to murder babies since they don't 'interact' with other individuals? Besides, as all religious extremists are "obsessed" with their religion, so you are for the society -- and remember that society is nothing by itself, the people in it define it. Subjectively. What's in one's opinion good for the society is not necessarily for another. It's why treating everything in the name of society is much worse than even a 'bad' religion.
Quote:
Yes, but they didn't create black people expressly for that purpose.
And if they did, are you telling me it would be ok?
Quote:
This doesn't conflict with that principle, because these clones are non-viable things in their stasis chambers (or wherever you hold them).
I could say the same about everyone since we're different in a way. You either have everybody (or soon-to-be-someone) equal or not at all. For you, it's like you tolerate only given things. You can't name a society in which black people are tolerated and gay people not, that it is EQUAL for all humans... it's false.
You can't take your own definitions of 'equal' because that will lead to, for example: "All humans are equal, as long as they are white". You are saying: "All humans are equal, as long as they can interact with each other"...
similarities? you can disagree, but that is not objective, if you look at the statements
Quote:
But these clones are not normal humans. They are things with human organs, and incapable of living independently of their life suppport.
They obviously are not -- and it's why I think it's bad to create them in the first place. Such disrespect for the most basic right to life is, well, I think it completely blurs the 'gay people have no right to marry' in contrast.
Quote:
There's a difference between a normal human life and other kinds of life.
There's a difference between black people and white people.
Quote:
I never watched "The Matrix", so I don't understand your analogy.
Ok, it wasn't even an analogy, it was the perfect 1 to 1 example of harvesting humans. but nevermind, just forget I said anything about it if you haven't watched it.
Quote:
No, because there is no fundamental difference between the child and the mother. Both are equally human.
Actually you should've said "both are alive".
Quote:
A clone used for organ purposes is not.
Why? People used the same arguments for 'racism', and still use it for discrimination. It is alive, no one doubts that, since it is the same as a human in that respect. Does it have the same rights? Probably not, but the society is flawed beyond comprehension. Did black people have rights some 100 years ago?
Quote:
Run for your lives!
*tries to get away from this thread*
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 21, 2008 10:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Harvesting infringes on the life of the harvested.
What if there is no real life in the first place? And if you don't think that animals can be our tools, then there's really no way to convince you that medical clones are tools too.
Quote:
we can say black people are different or gay people are different
Black people and gay people are equally functional. Clones without brains aren't.
Quote:
Society is not a person, there's no 'good' for it or 'bad' for it, people DEFINE THAT (i.e what's good and what's bad).
Society is a large group of individuals. They sometimes agree to prohibit or discourage certain individual actions for the benefit of the group. Say, they agree that murder may be initially beneficial to an individual, for one person to go and murder would be bad for the rest of the group, so they agreed to make it punishable, and also to discourage it morally too.
Quote:
So it's ok to murder babies since they don't 'interact' with other individuals?
Babies do interact with other individuals. And there is a critical difference between babies and clones - a baby can survive by itself for five minutes. A brainless clone can't.
Quote:
It's why treating everything in the name of society is much worse than even a 'bad' religion.
But that is the origin of all morals. Does that mean that not murdering is worse than a "bad" religion?
Quote:
And if they did, are you telling me it would be ok?
No, of course not, but that makes it even more so.
Quote:
I could say the same about everyone since we're different in a way.
But not all differences are important to other individuals. Let's say that you own a business, and you're hiring an employee. It should make no difference to you if the employee is black or gay or a woman, as long as he/she is qualified. But you wouldn't hire a brain-dead human, because that would prevent him/her from being qualified. That is, the difference between those who are in a vegetative state and those who aren't is far greater and more important than a difference in race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Quote:
For you, it's like you tolerate only given things.
??? Could you clarify this statement?
Quote:
You can't take your own definitions of 'equal' because that will lead to, for example: "All humans are equal, as long as they are white". You are saying: "All humans are equal, as long as they can interact with each other"...
Which is why we have to apply reason to the situation. Does it matter if a person is white or not? No. Does it matter if a person is brain-dead or not? Of course.
Quote:
They obviously are not -- and it's why I think it's bad to create them in the first place. Such disrespect for the most basic right to life
Can we breed cows? Then we can create brainless clones just as well.
Quote:
Actually you should've said "both are alive".
So are cows, but we kill and eat them.
Quote:
People used the same arguments for 'racism', and still use it for discrimination.
But the difference here is far greater and more important.
Quote:
It is alive, no one doubts that, since it is the same as a human in that respect.
But it is brain-dead. It is permissible to end the lives of the brain-dead, so it is with clones.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 22, 2008 03:48 PM |
|
|
Hmm
I like Corribus' threads. He makes good threads. It is good that he chooses to come to Heroes Community 
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 22, 2008 06:02 PM |
|
|
no quote wars
I'll not comment on all of it, since I don't want to end up in such a massive quote war, but that doesn't mean I didn't read what you said and I will take it into account.
Quote:
What if there is no real life in the first place?
When you are not sure of something, it's better to leave it alone and not attempt to use your 'assumptions' in the first place 
Quote:
And if you don't think that animals can be our tools, then there's really no way to convince you that medical clones are tools too.
Maybe, we call ourselves tolerant, but only to a certain extent. I think that we have had human slaves in the past, now we're likely to have them again. If not, I hope humans will 'evolve' to be tolerant even of other creatures. First is race, next would be species. I know the world is not fair, etc... but I do hope that some day humans will look in the past and be disgusted just as we are now by the 'racism' that happened in the past.
Quote:
Society is a large group of individuals. They sometimes agree to prohibit or discourage certain individual actions for the benefit of the group. Say, they agree that murder may be initially beneficial to an individual, for one person to go and murder would be bad for the rest of the group, so they agreed to make it punishable, and also to discourage it morally too.
So? That doesn't have anything to do with morals. I guess you think that all of us are 'nice' just because they profit from it? WRONG. How evolved are we if we only do it for profit (benefit of the society). Honestly now, if saving 1 person would require a lot of wealth (which would be 'harmful' for the society in general), would you do it? From your definition of morals, you are likely not to. This is, however, not how morals work. Morals have absolutely nothing to do with 'profitable' (for the society in our case).
Quote:
Babies do interact with other individuals. And there is a critical difference between babies and clones - a baby can survive by itself for five minutes. A brainless clone can't.
Just because it can't survive means that we are already wrong for doing it -- because we only 'harvest' what we need, without caring for it. It's not ok to make someone's life miserable in the first place. And by life I do not mean "anything that acts like a normal human". Geez, do we even dare to call ourselves tolerant. From what I've seen, we are only tolerant to those that act like us, like the 'normal' people. And this is the perfect example of this kind.
Quote:
But that is the origin of all morals. Does that mean that not murdering is worse than a "bad" religion?
Murder may be both morally wrong AND 'bad' for the society -- but that DOES NOT mean that they are the same. Let's suppose you are trapped somewhere with other people. Based on some calculations, you need to kill at least one for all of you to have enough oxygen. Certainly, the more people get out, the better it is for society. For morals, it's certainly not ok to kill anyone without his/her will. Who are you going to pick? Why not pick yourself? I mean, it'll be better for the society, right? This is where you make the fatal mistake of mixing morals with "the good of society". As far as I know, most organizations do not 'care' for the less fortunate people, because they will not affect the overall economy anyway. If they can kill them, they would, for the 'betterment' of society. Morally, it's completely wrong.
Quote:
Let's say that you own a business, and you're hiring an employee. It should make no difference to you if the employee is black or gay or a woman, as long as he/she is qualified. But you wouldn't hire a brain-dead human, because that would prevent him/her from being qualified. That is, the difference between those who are in a vegetative state and those who aren't is far greater and more important than a difference in race, gender, or sexual orientation.
That is only one example, from a business' point of view. If we take another example, like in a studio where we need only white people (because we take photos and only those are required), you see the 'important' difference of being white and black? It all depends on what kind of 'topic' we're in. If we are in a biologic topic, the difference between a clone and a normal human is much smaller than otherwise.
Quote:
??? Could you clarify this statement?
Well you tolerate what you were brought up in -- those that feel like you, act like you, and think like you (normal humans). But to have everyone equal means to be tolerant for everything. Not only humans we call normal. Even psychos (by our standards, from their we are psychos).
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 22, 2008 06:07 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 18:08, 22 Jun 2008.
|
This doesn't have anything to do with clones, but...
Quote:
Let's suppose you are trapped somewhere with other people. Based on some calculations, you need to kill at least one for all of you to have enough oxygen. Certainly, the more people get out, the better it is for society. For morals, it's certainly not ok to kill anyone without his/her will. Who are you going to pick? Why not pick yourself? I mean, it'll be better for the society, right? This is where you make the fatal mistake of mixing morals with "the good of society".
What would you do then? Let all people die (including the one you would've killed) from lack of oxygen?
____________
|
| |
|
|
