Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Developmental alteration

Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 8:27:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Why do the sex slaves have to be female, oh creepy one? I'm sure there are people out there who would love to fvck artificially-constructed vegetative-state men too. I find the thought horrific, personally, but we shouldn't assume that people who like fvcking women have an automatically higher vileness quotient than people who like fvcking men.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 12:26:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Doesn't seem feasible, especially the sex slave part. Not to mention being a huge waste of resources. I mean, it's not like people without rational intellect are a rare commodity. It would be much more sensible to harvest organs from these braindead clones.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 10:51:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 8:27:47 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Why do the sex slaves have to be female, oh creepy one? I'm sure there are people out there who would love to fvck artificially-constructed vegetative-state men too. I find the thought horrific, personally, but we shouldn't assume that people who like fvcking women have an automatically higher vileness quotient than people who like fvcking men.

It was an example. And one that you chose to ad hominem instead of answering.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 10:55:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Are you asking about modifying a human to be a non-sentient slave specifically, or are you more getting at the basic concept of using a non-sentient humanoid form as a slave? In other words, is the meaning behind your question preserved if we also talked about using convincing non-sentient humanoid replicas/androids, or is that a separate issue here?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 10:55:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 12:26:40 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Doesn't seem feasible, especially the sex slave part. Not to mention being a huge waste of resources. I mean, it's not like people without rational intellect are a rare commodity. It would be much more sensible to harvest organs from these braindead clones.

Someone else who won't actually answer the question.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 10:58:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 10:55:37 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Are you asking about modifying a human to be a non-sentient slave specifically, or are you more getting at the basic concept of using a non-sentient humanoid form as a slave? In other words, is the meaning behind your question preserved if we also talked about using convincing non-sentient humanoid replicas/androids, or is that a separate issue here?

The question is about modifying a human in the womb for the express purpose of creating a slave class of "non-rational" humans. Androids etc. is different because there you are creating from scratch, here you are modifying humans.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 11:07:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 10:58:23 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:55:37 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Are you asking about modifying a human to be a non-sentient slave specifically, or are you more getting at the basic concept of using a non-sentient humanoid form as a slave? In other words, is the meaning behind your question preserved if we also talked about using convincing non-sentient humanoid replicas/androids, or is that a separate issue here?

The question is about modifying a human in the womb for the express purpose of creating a slave class of "non-rational" humans. Androids etc. is different because there you are creating from scratch, here you are modifying humans.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Without thinking about it much (i.e., what I'm about to say may very will be extremely naive), I would say it is not a good thing to do for two main reasons.

1. Taking away the child's potential.
- I differentiate this from abortion, by the way. Abortion is usually chosen because of rape, inability to give birth safely, or inability to provide for the potential child. None of these can apply to raising a non-sentient child who is biologically human in most ways.

2. The cognitive dissonance it would create among sentient humans.
- Simply having slaves that look, smell, and seem human to us in most ways would deconstruct the strong associations we have, to a significant extent (because compartmentalization can only be partial in the brain), between human beings and concepts such as free will, bodily autonomy, respect, dignity, rights, etc.

Again, maybe it's extremely naive. Please do let me know.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 1:06:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 11:07:39 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:58:23 AM, Geogeer wrote:

The question is about modifying a human in the womb for the express purpose of creating a slave class of "non-rational" humans. Androids etc. is different because there you are creating from scratch, here you are modifying humans.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Without thinking about it much (i.e., what I'm about to say may very will be extremely naive), I would say it is not a good thing to do for two main reasons.

1. Taking away the child's potential.
- I differentiate this from abortion, by the way. Abortion is usually chosen because of rape, inability to give birth safely, or inability to provide for the potential child. None of these can apply to raising a non-sentient child who is biologically human in most ways.

Abortion actually takes away more potential than this does as life is the totality of your potential.

The remainder of your arguments seem to be that one's rights should be tied to outcomes:

If a certain economic status is not met you have the right to kill the child. Does that mean we are justified in killing the destitute in the 3rd world?

If there is a danger to the mom she can kill her child? Does that mean that she should be able to kill any of her born children to preserve her life?

Rape. So if a woman unwillingly entered into the guardianship of a child she should be permitted to kill it? Let's say a woman was kidnapped and placed in a cabin with a child. If she finds that taking care of the child is a constant reminder of her being kidnapped she has the right to kill the child?

2. The cognitive dissonance it would create among sentient humans.
- Simply having slaves that look, smell, and seem human to us in most ways would deconstruct the strong associations we have, to a significant extent (because compartmentalization can only be partial in the brain), between human beings and concepts such as free will, bodily autonomy, respect, dignity, rights, etc.

Free will, bodily autonomy, respect, dignity, rights have all been removed from the unborn so there is an inconsistency here.

Again, maybe it's extremely naive. Please do let me know.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 10:28:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 10:55:38 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/19/2015 12:26:40 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Doesn't seem feasible, especially the sex slave part. Not to mention being a huge waste of resources. I mean, it's not like people without rational intellect are a rare commodity. It would be much more sensible to harvest organs from these braindead clones.

Someone else who won't actually answer the question.

It's a dumb question. If someone asked me whether or not I would draw a square circle if my house was one fire, my answer would be 'I can't draw a square circle'. You can't do what you want to do and have any sort of human lifeform suitable for the purposes which you described, and even if you did it would be extremely uneconomical.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 11:26:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 10:28:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:55:38 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/19/2015 12:26:40 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Doesn't seem feasible, especially the sex slave part. Not to mention being a huge waste of resources. I mean, it's not like people without rational intellect are a rare commodity. It would be much more sensible to harvest organs from these braindead clones.

Someone else who won't actually answer the question.

It's a dumb question. If someone asked me whether or not I would draw a square circle if my house was one fire, my answer would be 'I can't draw a square circle'. You can't do what you want to do and have any sort of human lifeform suitable for the purposes which you described, and even if you did it would be extremely uneconomical.

Given our advances in genetics I would say it is perfectly possible in the near future. If the price was right somebody would do it.

However this type of questioning in normal in philosophy to make sure that you are applying consistent and even principles beyond one particular situation.

Obviously the question is causing you some internal conflict in answering otherwise you'd have no problem giving a response.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 11:40:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Hm. The relevant moral questions are:
1. Does it cause more harm/suffering to the foetus long term than normal (Utilitarianism consideration)
2. Does society value seeing free humans more than it does access to convenient labor? (Collectivist egoism view)
3. Does it violate established human rights/social contracts? (Contractarianism view)
4. Does the action violate rationality? (Kantianism)

Then you need to also consider the secondary effects, which to be frank are very difficult to speculate with accuracy, despite there will obviously be many secondary effects which themselves may be more significant in any of those three categories than the immediate listings themselves.

So at least when making a moral judgement, you need more information that what we have to know if the act is moral or immoral. As for "acceptable" then I presume you mean "according to social convention", or some primitive form of contractarianism. Again this depends on who and where you live. If somebody proposed this in the 76th century US then I don't think you are going to see much opposition to it. It would be regarded as even more acceptable than the slavery at the time since the latter would not be capable of second order suffering, etc.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 10:00:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 11:26:49 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:28:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:55:38 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/19/2015 12:26:40 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Doesn't seem feasible, especially the sex slave part. Not to mention being a huge waste of resources. I mean, it's not like people without rational intellect are a rare commodity. It would be much more sensible to harvest organs from these braindead clones.

Someone else who won't actually answer the question.

It's a dumb question. If someone asked me whether or not I would draw a square circle if my house was one fire, my answer would be 'I can't draw a square circle'. You can't do what you want to do and have any sort of human lifeform suitable for the purposes which you described, and even if you did it would be extremely uneconomical.

Given our advances in genetics I would say it is perfectly possible in the near future. If the price was right somebody would do it.

It's not just the genetics, its the fact that anyone genetically engineered to be without rational intellect would make for a very poor worker, or a very overpriced sex slave.

However this type of questioning in normal in philosophy to make sure that you are applying consistent and even principles beyond one particular situation.

Obviously the question is causing you some internal conflict in answering otherwise you'd have no problem giving a response.

Obviously not, because I have no problem with he harvesting of such creatures for their organs. The applications which you listed simply don't make sense; the raw materials of which these drones would be composed would be worth far more than their utility as either laborers or sex slaves.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 12:14:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 1:06:59 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/19/2015 11:07:39 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:58:23 AM, Geogeer wrote:

The question is about modifying a human in the womb for the express purpose of creating a slave class of "non-rational" humans. Androids etc. is different because there you are creating from scratch, here you are modifying humans.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Without thinking about it much (i.e., what I'm about to say may very will be extremely naive), I would say it is not a good thing to do for two main reasons.

1. Taking away the child's potential.
- I differentiate this from abortion, by the way. Abortion is usually chosen because of rape, inability to give birth safely, or inability to provide for the potential child. None of these can apply to raising a non-sentient child who is biologically human in most ways.

Abortion actually takes away more potential than this does as life is the totality of your potential.


I would say most of human potential comes from sentience and consciousness, not the mere fact of being composed of living tissue alone.

The remainder of your arguments seem to be that one's rights should be tied to outcomes:

If a certain economic status is not met you have the right to kill the child. Does that mean we are justified in killing the destitute in the 3rd world?

You are now treating as equivalent aborting a foetus and killing born humans of all ages.

If there is a danger to the mom she can kill her child? Does that mean that she should be able to kill any of her born children to preserve her life?

What is this hypothetical situation where the either the mother or her child must die? Is the child trying to kill her? If her 20 year old son is trying to kill her, she has a right to defend herself. Other than some kind of situation like that, I don't know what real-world example you might be referring to.


Rape. So if a woman unwillingly entered into the guardianship of a child she should be permitted to kill it? Let's say a woman was kidnapped and placed in a cabin with a child. If she finds that taking care of the child is a constant reminder of her being kidnapped she has the right to kill the child?

You are now treating as equivalent aborting a foetus and killing a random child found in a cabin.

You got completely caught up in my sub-comment about abortion, that you never actually addressed my actual reason for why it might not be acceptable to modify a foetus so that it becomes a non-sentient human child.

2. The cognitive dissonance it would create among sentient humans.
- Simply having slaves that look, smell, and seem human to us in most ways would deconstruct the strong associations we have, to a significant extent (because compartmentalization can only be partial in the brain), between human beings and concepts such as free will, bodily autonomy, respect, dignity, rights, etc.

Free will, bodily autonomy, respect, dignity, rights have all been removed from the unborn so there is an inconsistency here.

Please elaborate. Whether the modified child has free will, bodily autonomy, respect, dignity, rights, etc., has no bearing on my point. My point is about the effect on neural pathways in other humans due to exposure to non-sentient human replicas.

Again, maybe it's extremely naive. Please do let me know.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 12:27:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

This situation reminds me of Brave New World.

Yes, it would.

Also, sex with someone who was mindless would be meaningless. It would be nothing more than masturbation.
Tsar of DDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 2:31:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Becuase laws can be changed, but as it is I think a person with degraded mental rational would be unable to consent to sex.

Ethically it depends on what rights you grant living things and what rights you feel justified to withhold if one does not i'duce unnecessary pain. And again what is considered consent. One may say such labor is forced.

Morally I would say no. Do unto others as you wish done onto you. And in this case I think many agree being altered invitro to be born for slavery is not something they favor.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 2:37:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Foetuses have rights insofar as they have the potential to become rational beings, but the thing is that they are, by nature, dependant on the mother. They are living because of her on her property, and, as such, they are living on her terms - they don't have any exercisable rights because of the fact that they're using the mother as a host. There would be nothing wrong with doing anything to foetuses within the mother.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 4:09:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 10:00:34 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/20/2015 11:26:49 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:28:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:55:38 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/19/2015 12:26:40 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Doesn't seem feasible, especially the sex slave part. Not to mention being a huge waste of resources. I mean, it's not like people without rational intellect are a rare commodity. It would be much more sensible to harvest organs from these braindead clones.

Someone else who won't actually answer the question.

It's a dumb question. If someone asked me whether or not I would draw a square circle if my house was one fire, my answer would be 'I can't draw a square circle'. You can't do what you want to do and have any sort of human lifeform suitable for the purposes which you described, and even if you did it would be extremely uneconomical.

Given our advances in genetics I would say it is perfectly possible in the near future. If the price was right somebody would do it.

It's not just the genetics, its the fact that anyone genetically engineered to be without rational intellect would make for a very poor worker, or a very overpriced sex slave.

However this type of questioning in normal in philosophy to make sure that you are applying consistent and even principles beyond one particular situation.

Obviously the question is causing you some internal conflict in answering otherwise you'd have no problem giving a response.

Obviously not, because I have no problem with he harvesting of such creatures for their organs. The applications which you listed simply don't make sense; the raw materials of which these drones would be composed would be worth far more than their utility as either laborers or sex slaves.

So when is it acceptable to kill humans for their organs? Is it just to create humans just to harvest their organs? Let's assume a couple has a baby with a heart defect. Is it acceptable for the parents to have another and swap the hearts between the two children?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 4:15:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 12:27:05 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

This situation reminds me of Brave New World.

Yes, it would.

So when is someone justified in interfering with the development of another human? Could I do the same with a newborn? A teenager? A criminal?

Also, sex with someone who was mindless would be meaningless. It would be nothing more than masturbation.

The same could be said to be effectively true with prostitutes, but it doesn't seem to stop people... However they may not be mindless, but more like well trained animals who would respond actively to stimulation.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 4:19:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 2:31:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Becuase laws can be changed, but as it is I think a person with degraded mental rational would be unable to consent to sex.

Ethically it depends on what rights you grant living things and what rights you feel justified to withhold if one does not i'duce unnecessary pain. And again what is considered consent. One may say such labor is forced.

Morally I would say no. Do unto others as you wish done onto you. And in this case I think many agree being altered invitro to be born for slavery is not something they favor.

So the question is when are you granted effective rights over your body? Are rights even granted or are they intrinsic to humans and apply at all stages of life?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 4:34:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 4:19:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:31:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Becuase laws can be changed, but as it is I think a person with degraded mental rational would be unable to consent to sex.

Ethically it depends on what rights you grant living things and what rights you feel justified to withhold if one does not i'duce unnecessary pain. And again what is considered consent. One may say such labor is forced.

Morally I would say no. Do unto others as you wish done onto you. And in this case I think many agree being altered invitro to be born for slavery is not something they favor.

So the question is when are you granted effective rights over your body? Are rights even granted or are they intrinsic to humans and apply at all stages of life?

Rights are a human construct for legal purposes. Rights are not innate they are granted, sometimes only after long struggles.

I think morality is objective. And one rule of morality would be to not do onto others as you would not want done to you.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 4:45:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 2:37:55 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Foetuses have rights insofar as they have the potential to become rational beings, but the thing is that they are, by nature, dependant on the mother. They are living because of her on her property, and, as such, they are living on her terms - they don't have any exercisable rights because of the fact that they're using the mother as a host. There would be nothing wrong with doing anything to foetuses within the mother.

And yet if the child is born and the parents must provide for the means of the child. The government can compel you to use what resources you have to feed, educate and provide shelter for your child. Why do parents have such a legal obligation after, but murder is acceptable before?

Let's assume the mother of the newborn goes out to her cabin. While there there is an avalanche trapping her in the cabin without any formula. Let's further assume she had decided that she did not want to breast feed. Is she obligated to breast feed her newborn or can she legitimately permit it to starve because the child has no right to her body?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 4:57:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 4:34:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/23/2015 4:19:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:31:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Becuase laws can be changed, but as it is I think a person with degraded mental rational would be unable to consent to sex.

Ethically it depends on what rights you grant living things and what rights you feel justified to withhold if one does not i'duce unnecessary pain. And again what is considered consent. One may say such labor is forced.

Morally I would say no. Do unto others as you wish done onto you. And in this case I think many agree being altered invitro to be born for slavery is not something they favor.

So the question is when are you granted effective rights over your body? Are rights even granted or are they intrinsic to humans and apply at all stages of life?

Rights are a human construct for legal purposes. Rights are not innate they are granted, sometimes only after long struggles.

I think morality is objective. And one rule of morality would be to not do onto others as you would not want done to you.

How can morality be objective if rights are not equally innate? Equality is a concept not based on morality but on the concept of innate or inalienable rights. Rather morality is made possible by rights. If you have no right even to life my adherence to the Golden rule is completely subjective because it presupposes an meaningless outcome value rather than it being an acknowledgement of a greater truth - i.e. we are both being of intrinsic value.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 5:33:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 4:57:05 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/23/2015 4:34:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/23/2015 4:19:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:31:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Becuase laws can be changed, but as it is I think a person with degraded mental rational would be unable to consent to sex.

Ethically it depends on what rights you grant living things and what rights you feel justified to withhold if one does not i'duce unnecessary pain. And again what is considered consent. One may say such labor is forced.

Morally I would say no. Do unto others as you wish done onto you. And in this case I think many agree being altered invitro to be born for slavery is not something they favor.

So the question is when are you granted effective rights over your body? Are rights even granted or are they intrinsic to humans and apply at all stages of life?

Rights are a human construct for legal purposes. Rights are not innate they are granted, sometimes only after long struggles.

I think morality is objective. And one rule of morality would be to not do onto others as you would not want done to you.

How can morality be objective if rights are not equally innate? Equality is a concept not based on morality but on the concept of innate or inalienable rights. Rather morality is made possible by rights. If you have no right even to life my adherence to the Golden rule is completely subjective because it presupposes an meaningless outcome value rather than it being an acknowledgement of a greater truth - i.e. we are both being of intrinsic value.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776

As Right is a freedom granted by an authority. Now Jefferson is arguing that there are Natural rights that should not be impinged upon by the laws of any earthly government. These rights being granted by a Creator, an appeal to an authority higher than the king the Americas were revolting against.

I don't think there are any Natural Rights. And I don't see how "rights" as I just described have anything to do with intrinsic worth?

But I can have a Moral compass, because Morality is about good or bad actions. I can have the "Right" to freely do something that may be Morally bad. Just as I could do something that I haven't been granted the "Right" to do that I think is morally good.

Do you think someone can have integrity if they lie, cheat, and steal? If "No" then an American spy in ISIS has no integrity. Which I would disagree with.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 7:18:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 5:33:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/23/2015 4:57:05 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/23/2015 4:34:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/23/2015 4:19:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:31:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Becuase laws can be changed, but as it is I think a person with degraded mental rational would be unable to consent to sex.

Ethically it depends on what rights you grant living things and what rights you feel justified to withhold if one does not i'duce unnecessary pain. And again what is considered consent. One may say such labor is forced.

Morally I would say no. Do unto others as you wish done onto you. And in this case I think many agree being altered invitro to be born for slavery is not something they favor.

So the question is when are you granted effective rights over your body? Are rights even granted or are they intrinsic to humans and apply at all stages of life?

Rights are a human construct for legal purposes. Rights are not innate they are granted, sometimes only after long struggles.

I think morality is objective. And one rule of morality would be to not do onto others as you would not want done to you.

How can morality be objective if rights are not equally innate? Equality is a concept not based on morality but on the concept of innate or inalienable rights. Rather morality is made possible by rights. If you have no right even to life my adherence to the Golden rule is completely subjective because it presupposes an meaningless outcome value rather than it being an acknowledgement of a greater truth - i.e. we are both being of intrinsic value.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776

As Right is a freedom granted by an authority. Now Jefferson is arguing that there are Natural rights that should not be impinged upon by the laws of any earthly government. These rights being granted by a Creator, an appeal to an authority higher than the king the Americas were revolting against.

I don't think there are any Natural Rights. And I don't see how "rights" as I just described have anything to do with intrinsic worth?

If something has a right it has a worth. This is why the rights of humans are greater than the rights of the cows you eat at McDonalds and upholster your car with. Your value is greater. Yet we do not permit senseless abuse of animals because they have some value.

If the Deist god established natural law that is because we have value to this impersonal god (one does not create laws for something of no value). If this god the source of all value believes you to have value, you are intrinsically valuable - because even the deist god is unchanging in nature.

But I can have a Moral compass, because Morality is about good or bad actions. I can have the "Right" to freely do something that may be Morally bad. Just as I could do something that I haven't been granted the "Right" to do that I think is morally good.

It is not that you been granted a right to act morally, but rather moral action is keeping the obligation to preserve the rights of others.

Do you think someone can have integrity if they lie, cheat, and steal? If "No" then an American spy in ISIS has no integrity. Which I would disagree with.

Do you have the duty to uphold the integrity of somebody who doesn't uphold it themselves? Do you end up that in the short term you gain an advantage, but in the long term nobody trusts you anymore? If morality is truly objective then it must be adhered to at all times.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 9:18:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 7:18:49 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/23/2015 5:33:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/23/2015 4:57:05 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/23/2015 4:34:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/23/2015 4:19:00 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:31:27 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Becuase laws can be changed, but as it is I think a person with degraded mental rational would be unable to consent to sex.

Ethically it depends on what rights you grant living things and what rights you feel justified to withhold if one does not i'duce unnecessary pain. And again what is considered consent. One may say such labor is forced.

Morally I would say no. Do unto others as you wish done onto you. And in this case I think many agree being altered invitro to be born for slavery is not something they favor.

So the question is when are you granted effective rights over your body? Are rights even granted or are they intrinsic to humans and apply at all stages of life?

Rights are a human construct for legal purposes. Rights are not innate they are granted, sometimes only after long struggles.

I think morality is objective. And one rule of morality would be to not do onto others as you would not want done to you.

How can morality be objective if rights are not equally innate? Equality is a concept not based on morality but on the concept of innate or inalienable rights. Rather morality is made possible by rights. If you have no right even to life my adherence to the Golden rule is completely subjective because it presupposes an meaningless outcome value rather than it being an acknowledgement of a greater truth - i.e. we are both being of intrinsic value.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776

As Right is a freedom granted by an authority. Now Jefferson is arguing that there are Natural rights that should not be impinged upon by the laws of any earthly government. These rights being granted by a Creator, an appeal to an authority higher than the king the Americas were revolting against.

I don't think there are any Natural Rights. And I don't see how "rights" as I just described have anything to do with intrinsic worth?

If something has a right it has a worth. This is why the rights of humans are greater than the rights of the cows you eat at McDonalds and upholster your car with. Your value is greater. Yet we do not permit senseless abuse of animals because they have some value.

Right is a freedom granted by the state. And by default rights are reserved from you by the state. The state attempts to hold to all the privileges until forced to concede some to you. That's what rights are.

But Rights have nothing to do with worth. you haven't made any case to me to convince me that my value is contingent on the rights an authority gives me. To me that is so backwards.


If the Deist god established natural law that is because we have value to this impersonal god (one does not create laws for something of no value). If this god the source of all value believes you to have value, you are intrinsically valuable - because even the deist god is unchanging in nature.

Just like you said that animal cruelty is bad because even cows have some value... We don't know what a God has planned so we don't know what our value is. Clearly God values some people more than others. Maybe the killing of cows that is justified in your mind is abominable in the sight of God.

If we are not talking about a personal God and we are talking about a Deistic one, making laws does not imply intrinsic value to humans. A creator God that made the physical laws may see humans like bacteria in the corner of a petri dish. For a Deistic God we may be the abnormally in an otherwise perfectly balanced universe of interstellar objects,


But I can have a Moral compass, because Morality is about good or bad actions. I can have the "Right" to freely do something that may be Morally bad. Just as I could do something that I haven't been granted the "Right" to do that I think is morally good.

It is not that you been granted a right to act morally, but rather moral action is keeping the obligation to preserve the rights of others.

Well that is if you think there are natural rights. I don't. As you mentioned before you think there are natural rights innate to mankind and not cows. That doesn't seem very universal. Why would the right to kill a cow and the right to kill a man be different?

Because rights do not make moral actions. Rights are just freedoms granted by the authority. I don't think a God has established any right, tho I do think God established moral behavior.

If your a christian: 1 Corinthians 6:12
"All things are lawful for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "All things are lawful for me"--but I will not be controlled by anything

Many times this is translated as right. Clearly right is in the context of law. And if you read this passage it is clear Pual is saying yes you are free from the old law, free from the shackles of the law, you have the rights to do anything... BUT... not free to be morally bad. So there is a distinction. And it is the one I have specified.


Do you think someone can have integrity if they lie, cheat, and steal? If "No" then an American spy in ISIS has no integrity. Which I would disagree with.

Do you have the duty to uphold the integrity of somebody who doesn't uphold it themselves? Do you end up that in the short term you gain an advantage, but in the long term nobody trusts you anymore? If morality is truly objective then it must be adhered to at all times.

Here's my argument for objective morality.

P1. It is either good to kill someone inside your social context or it is bad.
P2. It is not good to kill someone inside your social context.
C1. Therefore it is bad to kill someone inside your social context.

I consider the context to be relative and subjective, but the rule to be objective. this social context could be considered yourselves, your family, or your nation. Even when there is of capitol punishment, in almost all cultures there is a ceremonious excommunication, or ostracizing before killing the criminal.

In societies where one sub group reaps the benefits of the whole, and yet is allow to kill the whole, this is consider an unjust system. And if you put it in moral context we may consider such actions immoral.

But what I do not see is Rights equated with Morals. Nor do I see Rights or Morals equated with Value.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 10:04:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 4:09:43 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/20/2015 10:00:34 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/20/2015 11:26:49 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:28:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:55:38 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/19/2015 12:26:40 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Doesn't seem feasible, especially the sex slave part. Not to mention being a huge waste of resources. I mean, it's not like people without rational intellect are a rare commodity. It would be much more sensible to harvest organs from these braindead clones.

Someone else who won't actually answer the question.

It's a dumb question. If someone asked me whether or not I would draw a square circle if my house was one fire, my answer would be 'I can't draw a square circle'. You can't do what you want to do and have any sort of human lifeform suitable for the purposes which you described, and even if you did it would be extremely uneconomical.

Given our advances in genetics I would say it is perfectly possible in the near future. If the price was right somebody would do it.

It's not just the genetics, its the fact that anyone genetically engineered to be without rational intellect would make for a very poor worker, or a very overpriced sex slave.

However this type of questioning in normal in philosophy to make sure that you are applying consistent and even principles beyond one particular situation.

Obviously the question is causing you some internal conflict in answering otherwise you'd have no problem giving a response.

Obviously not, because I have no problem with he harvesting of such creatures for their organs. The applications which you listed simply don't make sense; the raw materials of which these drones would be composed would be worth far more than their utility as either laborers or sex slaves.

So when is it acceptable to kill humans for their organs?
When they have no capacity for rational intellect. That's why I dismiss animal rights: they aren't in a position to follow any sort of social contract.

Is it just to create humans just to harvest their organs?
Humans? No. Mindless meatbots? The sooner we can do that the better.

Let's assume a couple has a baby with a heart defect. Is it acceptable for the parents to have another and swap the hearts between the two children?
If they were fraternal twins, so long as the procedure goes off without a hitch and the babies are of otherwise equal health and they have a sound reason for doing so, then yeah. I really don't see how the new baby situation is even feasible, as the two would need to reach an equitable state before any sort of transplant could be performed, and at that point both are fully cognizant and it would be a violation of rights.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 10:53:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 10:04:11 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/23/2015 4:09:43 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/20/2015 10:00:34 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/20/2015 11:26:49 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:28:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:55:38 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/19/2015 12:26:40 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Doesn't seem feasible, especially the sex slave part. Not to mention being a huge waste of resources. I mean, it's not like people without rational intellect are a rare commodity. It would be much more sensible to harvest organs from these braindead clones.

Someone else who won't actually answer the question.

It's a dumb question. If someone asked me whether or not I would draw a square circle if my house was one fire, my answer would be 'I can't draw a square circle'. You can't do what you want to do and have any sort of human lifeform suitable for the purposes which you described, and even if you did it would be extremely uneconomical.

Given our advances in genetics I would say it is perfectly possible in the near future. If the price was right somebody would do it.

It's not just the genetics, its the fact that anyone genetically engineered to be without rational intellect would make for a very poor worker, or a very overpriced sex slave.

However this type of questioning in normal in philosophy to make sure that you are applying consistent and even principles beyond one particular situation.

Obviously the question is causing you some internal conflict in answering otherwise you'd have no problem giving a response.

Obviously not, because I have no problem with he harvesting of such creatures for their organs. The applications which you listed simply don't make sense; the raw materials of which these drones would be composed would be worth far more than their utility as either laborers or sex slaves.

So when is it acceptable to kill humans for their organs?
When they have no capacity for rational intellect. That's why I dismiss animal rights: they aren't in a position to follow any sort of social contract.

Proverbs 12:10 A righteous person cares for the life of his animal, but even the most compassionate acts of the wicked are cruel.


Is it just to create humans just to harvest their organs?
Humans? No. Mindless meatbots? The sooner we can do that the better.

That day isn't here already? What happened to you then?


Let's assume a couple has a baby with a heart defect. Is it acceptable for the parents to have another and swap the hearts between the two children?
If they were fraternal twins, so long as the procedure goes off without a hitch and the babies are of otherwise equal health and they have a sound reason for doing so, then yeah. I really don't see how the new baby situation is even feasible, as the two would need to reach an equitable state before any sort of transplant could be performed, and at that point both are fully cognizant and it would be a violation of rights.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 10:56:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 10:53:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/23/2015 10:04:11 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/23/2015 4:09:43 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/20/2015 10:00:34 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/20/2015 11:26:49 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:28:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:55:38 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/19/2015 12:26:40 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/18/2015 7:14:08 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Would it be acceptable to interfere with the brain of a developing fetus (or even manipulate its genetic code at the zygote stage) to make the child one without any rational intellect?

The purpose of which would be to create male servants for manual labour or female sex slaves.

Doesn't seem feasible, especially the sex slave part. Not to mention being a huge waste of resources. I mean, it's not like people without rational intellect are a rare commodity. It would be much more sensible to harvest organs from these braindead clones.

Someone else who won't actually answer the question.

It's a dumb question. If someone asked me whether or not I would draw a square circle if my house was one fire, my answer would be 'I can't draw a square circle'. You can't do what you want to do and have any sort of human lifeform suitable for the purposes which you described, and even if you did it would be extremely uneconomical.

Given our advances in genetics I would say it is perfectly possible in the near future. If the price was right somebody would do it.

It's not just the genetics, its the fact that anyone genetically engineered to be without rational intellect would make for a very poor worker, or a very overpriced sex slave.

However this type of questioning in normal in philosophy to make sure that you are applying consistent and even principles beyond one particular situation.

Obviously the question is causing you some internal conflict in answering otherwise you'd have no problem giving a response.

Obviously not, because I have no problem with he harvesting of such creatures for their organs. The applications which you listed simply don't make sense; the raw materials of which these drones would be composed would be worth far more than their utility as either laborers or sex slaves.

So when is it acceptable to kill humans for their organs?
When they have no capacity for rational intellect. That's why I dismiss animal rights: they aren't in a position to follow any sort of social contract.

Proverbs 12:10 A righteous person cares for the life of his animal, but even the most compassionate acts of the wicked are cruel.

Neat.


Is it just to create humans just to harvest their organs?
Humans? No. Mindless meatbots? The sooner we can do that the better.

That day isn't here already? What happened to you then?

That didn't even make sense. Try again.


Let's assume a couple has a baby with a heart defect. Is it acceptable for the parents to have another and swap the hearts between the two children?
If they were fraternal twins, so long as the procedure goes off without a hitch and the babies are of otherwise equal health and they have a sound reason for doing so, then yeah. I really don't see how the new baby situation is even feasible, as the two would need to reach an equitable state before any sort of transplant could be performed, and at that point both are fully cognizant and it would be a violation of rights.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -