Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,920 Year: 4,177/9,624 Month: 1,048/974 Week: 7/368 Day: 7/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Playing God with Neanderthals
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 4 of 144 (547868)
02-23-2010 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
02-23-2010 11:39 AM


I don't see how this is any different than people born with severe disabilities or sexually ambiguous genitalia. They too are "outside" the normal set of human experience. Is it immoral to allow them to live?
No, but it would be immoral to deliberately cause someone to be born with these problems just out of scientific curiosity.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 02-23-2010 11:39 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Nuggin, posted 02-23-2010 4:00 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 18 of 144 (547963)
02-24-2010 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by AZPaul3
02-23-2010 4:16 PM


No. We are not talking about resurrecting an entire population of some bygone species to be reintroduced into their natural environment, but of (assumed) sentient individuals far removed from the niche their bodies, their brains and their psyches evolved to inhabit.
Well if it comes to that, so are we.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by AZPaul3, posted 02-23-2010 4:16 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by AZPaul3, posted 02-24-2010 11:45 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 26 of 144 (547980)
02-24-2010 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by AZPaul3
02-24-2010 11:45 AM


I disagree. The difference being we have had an additional 50k years of evolution.
Most of which our ancestors spent as hunter-gathers. Frankly, we're way out of our league.
What we consider a bothersome though harmless rhinovirus is better adapted to today then this poor guy would be.
Specifically, it's well-adapted to us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by AZPaul3, posted 02-24-2010 11:45 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by AZPaul3, posted 02-24-2010 2:23 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 28 by AZPaul3, posted 02-24-2010 2:45 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 144 (548015)
02-24-2010 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by AZPaul3
02-24-2010 2:23 PM


And we to them which is why they are just bothersome instead of fatal.
I know how we could solve this knotty scientific problem ...
... we could clone a Neanderthal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by AZPaul3, posted 02-24-2010 2:23 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by AZPaul3, posted 02-24-2010 10:19 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 119 of 144 (607353)
03-03-2011 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Peter
03-03-2011 9:48 AM


Re: Anthropocentrism
Not sure what other criterion could be used to measure 'worth' (which is itself a fairly vague concept), but it seems to me that basing that on a measure of similarity is arrogant and somewhat counter-productive.
It's pretty much the only basis I have for according you more rights than my refrigerator. Unless you can stand in one corner of my kitchen and keep my food cold.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Peter, posted 03-03-2011 9:48 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Peter, posted 03-03-2011 11:58 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 127 of 144 (607386)
03-03-2011 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Peter
03-03-2011 11:58 AM


Re: Anthropocentrism
Doesn't it all boil down what is most useful to you though?
I would think that, in general, your fridge is more important to you than I am
Yes, that was my point --- my fridge is vastly more useful to me than you are. In which case, in order for me to grant you more rights than a refrigerator (which presumably you will admit is desirable) I need some other way of judging this. Whether by mere instinctive empathy, or by what one might argue are equally sentimental criteria such as your ability to reason or to feel pain, I am in effect using similarities to myself as criteria.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Peter, posted 03-03-2011 11:58 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Peter, posted 03-04-2011 5:59 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 138 of 144 (607522)
03-04-2011 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Peter
03-04-2011 5:59 AM


Re: Anthropocentrism
Don't know if you are familiar with Dr Who (UK sci-fi TV series), but they have a race called the Daleks who were created for ethnic cleansing ... then decided that only Dalek's ahd any worth and so set out to destroy all other life in the Universe.
Kind of an extreme response to worth=similarity, but extremes often expose issues within a premise.
Well, of course it depends what similarities we choose.
But there will normally be some. It is certainly true that I could in principle afford rights arbitrarily --- randomly granting them to John, Henry, and Peter while withholding them from James, Tony, and Bill --- but in practice people will grant rights to members of a natural class (by which I mean one defined by a simple criterion). These will necessarily have something in common, which is what makes them members of a natural class.
Then if I think that I should have these rights (and again, though in principle I might not, in practice I will) then they must all have something in common with me that makes them and me all members of this class.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Peter, posted 03-04-2011 5:59 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Peter, posted 03-08-2011 8:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 144 of 144 (608408)
03-10-2011 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Peter
03-08-2011 8:39 AM


Re: Anthropocentrism
So it all becomes a question of where in our hierarchy of attributes we start our comparison, and how deep we go before we stop ... ?
Quite so.
Note again that I am being descriptive and not prescriptive. There would be something deeply circular about being prescriptive about how to construct ethical systems; and if someone constructed a system in which, for example, lawnmowers enjoyed a higher status than people, then there would be little to say to him except that I have different premises.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Peter, posted 03-08-2011 8:39 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024