Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Human Enhancement via Biotechnology.

frbnsn
Posts: 353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 7:45:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Who can say that enhancement in science is bad.
But must be used for the benefit of humanity.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 9:26:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 5:54:59 AM, apb4y wrote:
What your thoughts on the matter?

It can really help people out. It has the ability to let the crippled walk, to help construction workers, etc.

There are, however, three problems I can see from it.

The first, and a major one, enhancement of soldiers. I think that this needs no explanation.

The second, will it interfere with the evolution of man?

The third, and one I really don't care about (except in the World Cup and Olympics), athletic fairness.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 10:03:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 9:26:44 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/3/2014 5:54:59 AM, apb4y wrote:
What your thoughts on the matter?

It can really help people out. It has the ability to let the crippled walk, to help construction workers, etc.

There are, however, three problems I can see from it.

The first, and a major one, enhancement of soldiers. I think that this needs no explanation.

It will almost certainly be for this purpose that human enhancement will first be introduced, as was radio, fission, space travel, etc. Etc.

The second, will it interfere with the evolution of man?

Eugenics would work...

The third, and one I really don't care about (except in the World Cup and Olympics), athletic fairness.

The rules are inevitably going to become more and more arbitary over time. For example it is predicted that athletic amputees might exceed the performance of fully-able runners due to improvements in the synthetic leg technologies, and while they can run now with able bodied runners, as soon as their performance surpasses they will get banned.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 10:07:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 10:03:05 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/3/2014 9:26:44 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/3/2014 5:54:59 AM, apb4y wrote:
What your thoughts on the matter?

It can really help people out. It has the ability to let the crippled walk, to help construction workers, etc.

There are, however, three problems I can see from it.

The first, and a major one, enhancement of soldiers. I think that this needs no explanation.

It will almost certainly be for this purpose that human enhancement will first be introduced, as was radio, fission, space travel, etc. Etc.

That is probably true, but I think that we should try and avoid it being first introduced in the military.

The second, will it interfere with the evolution of man?

Eugenics would work...

True

The third, and one I really don't care about (except in the World Cup and Olympics), athletic fairness.

The rules are inevitably going to become more and more arbitary over time. For example it is predicted that athletic amputees might exceed the performance of fully-able runners due to improvements in the synthetic leg technologies, and while they can run now with able bodied runners, as soon as their performance surpasses they will get banned.

Which then runs into the question, can amputees play sports? Would an entirely new league have to be created? How can it be assured to be fair? Etc.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 10:16:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is not a straightforward issue. Enhancement can be used for a lot of varied purposes. For example, one might call providing human growth hormone to someone who is four feet tall as reasonable, but what about if the person is five feet tall? 5' 5"? At what point is the provision of this hormone becoming an enhancement meant to provide extra benefit, and at what point is it an equalizer? This is an important ethical question, and one that we'll have to come to grips with as this technology goes forward.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 6:43:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 10:07:29 AM, SNP1 wrote:

That is probably true, but I think that we should try and avoid it being first introduced in the military.

Good luck with that. Uncle Sam can buy anything.

The second, will it interfere with the evolution of man?

There are currently four forces of Evolution: Migration (alleles move between populations), Mutation (new alleles are created), Genetic Drift (certain alleles fail to be passed on) and Natural Selection (advantageous alleles win, deleterious ones lose).

Genetic Engineering is just a form of controlled mutation; humankind would still be at the mercy of Nature.

Which then runs into the question, can amputees play sports? Would an entirely new league have to be created? How can it be assured to be fair? Etc.

The issue will disappear when:

a) Limb regeneration becomes as easy as taking some p21 blockers (unless you're born without the gene) and visiting a physiotherapist for several months.

b) Physical enhancements become universal. Then the contest comes down to training.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 6:45:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 10:16:28 AM, whiteflame wrote:
This is not a straightforward issue. Enhancement can be used for a lot of varied purposes. For example, one might call providing human growth hormone to someone who is four feet tall as reasonable, but what about if the person is five feet tall? 5' 5"? At what point is the provision of this hormone becoming an enhancement meant to provide extra benefit, and at what point is it an equalizer? This is an important ethical question, and one that we'll have to come to grips with as this technology goes forward.

Leave it up to the individual. If they want to grow taller, that's their business. They should do it with medical supervision though, as excess growth hormone can mess you up.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 6:54:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 6:45:27 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/3/2014 10:16:28 AM, whiteflame wrote:
This is not a straightforward issue. Enhancement can be used for a lot of varied purposes. For example, one might call providing human growth hormone to someone who is four feet tall as reasonable, but what about if the person is five feet tall? 5' 5"? At what point is the provision of this hormone becoming an enhancement meant to provide extra benefit, and at what point is it an equalizer? This is an important ethical question, and one that we'll have to come to grips with as this technology goes forward.

Leave it up to the individual. If they want to grow taller, that's their business. They should do it with medical supervision though, as excess growth hormone can mess you up.

I'm generally agreed that that should be the case, but it's not just a question of what people should be allowed to do, but rather also one of what doctors should prescribe. There's a certain level of risk associated with human growth hormone, especially later in life and at larger sizes. Should doctors encourage that risk? Does it clash with the "do no harm" principle of the profession?
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 8:20:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 6:54:36 PM, whiteflame wrote:

I'm generally agreed that that should be the case, but it's not just a question of what people should be allowed to do, but rather also one of what doctors should prescribe. There's a certain level of risk associated with human growth hormone, especially later in life and at larger sizes. Should doctors encourage that risk? Does it clash with the "do no harm" principle of the profession?

Doctors should do what's best for their patient. They must use their own judgement to determine what that is. We can't use ethics to control the live of others.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 8:30:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 8:20:48 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/3/2014 6:54:36 PM, whiteflame wrote:

I'm generally agreed that that should be the case, but it's not just a question of what people should be allowed to do, but rather also one of what doctors should prescribe. There's a certain level of risk associated with human growth hormone, especially later in life and at larger sizes. Should doctors encourage that risk? Does it clash with the "do no harm" principle of the profession?

Doctors should do what's best for their patient. They must use their own judgement to determine what that is. We can't use ethics to control the live of others.

Doing what's "best for their patient" is inherently subjective. If it's a health concern versus something their patient specifically wants, then yes, it is an ethical quandary. The Hippocratic Oath is inherently an oath that forces doctors to ascribe to an ethical code of conduct, and they have to balance the ethics of disobeying it win the ethics of disregarding the wishes of their patient. To that extent, ethics control our lives in nearly every aspect. The idea that it shouldn't control our medical decisions is absurd.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 10:27:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 8:30:39 PM, whiteflame wrote:

Doing what's "best for their patient" is inherently subjective.

Everything is subjective.

If it's a health concern versus something their patient specifically wants, then yes, it is an ethical quandary. The Hippocratic Oath is inherently an oath that forces doctors to ascribe to an ethical code of conduct, and they have to balance the ethics of disobeying it win the ethics of disregarding the wishes of their patient.

If they're stupid enough to prescribe a risky amount of HGH for what is essentially a cosmetic enhancement, then they are too fvcking stupid to be practicing medicine. Most doctors aren't stupid.

To that extent, ethics control our lives in nearly every aspect.

Not really. Most decisions we make have nothing to do with ethics, and most people aren't very ethical anyway.

The idea that it shouldn't control our medical decisions is absurd.

Strawman fallacy. I never said ethics shouldn't be considered, just that it shouldn't be used to micromanage competent individuals.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 11:19:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 10:27:36 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/3/2014 8:30:39 PM, whiteflame wrote:

Doing what's "best for their patient" is inherently subjective.

Everything is subjective.

So, then, why do you have a problem with utilizing ethics instead of the still more nebulous "best"?

If it's a health concern versus something their patient specifically wants, then yes, it is an ethical quandary. The Hippocratic Oath is inherently an oath that forces doctors to ascribe to an ethical code of conduct, and they have to balance the ethics of disobeying it win the ethics of disregarding the wishes of their patient.

If they're stupid enough to prescribe a risky amount of HGH for what is essentially a cosmetic enhancement, then they are too fvcking stupid to be practicing medicine. Most doctors aren't stupid.

This is starting to make less and less sense. You're saying that they should do what's best. Best for whom? If you're doing what's best based on what best meets the patient's wishes, then you're acting on that ethical standard and ignoring the ethics of health care professionals to do no harm. If you're refusing the patient, then you're doing the opposite. If you provide a small dose of HGH to them, you're still balancing those ethical decisions, and in fact siding against the patient's wishes by denying them a dose they request in many instances, even if they know full well the probable result. My point is that ethics is involved in any decision that's made, and that the most logical decision that still affords them HGH, the one you've presented, is based on using ethics to control the dose.

To that extent, ethics control our lives in nearly every aspect.

Not really. Most decisions we make have nothing to do with ethics, and most people aren't very ethical anyway.

Every law is an ethical standard we follow (or, in some cases, refuse to follow) that comes with real world consequences. To say that ethics don't control our lives is to ignore organized societies of any sort.

The idea that it shouldn't control our medical decisions is absurd.

Strawman fallacy. I never said ethics shouldn't be considered, just that it shouldn't be used to micromanage competent individuals.

That's not what you said originally, but even if that's true, ethics already micromanage our lives. Besides that, how can we assess competence? Is risk taking inherently incompetent? Many people would choose to risk health problems for glory, should they be considered mentally incompetent?
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 11:49:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 11:19:15 PM, whiteflame wrote:

So, then, why do you have a problem with utilizing ethics instead of the still more nebulous "best"?

I don't understand the question.

This is starting to make less and less sense. You're saying that they should do what's best. Best for whom? If you're doing what's best based on what best meets the patient's wishes, then you're acting on that ethical standard and ignoring the ethics of health care professionals to do no harm. If you're refusing the patient, then you're doing the opposite. If you provide a small dose of HGH to them, you're still balancing those ethical decisions, and in fact siding against the patient's wishes by denying them a dose they request in many instances, even if they know full well the probable result. My point is that ethics is involved in any decision that's made, and that the most logical decision that still affords them HGH, the one you've presented, is based on using ethics to control the dose.

Nah, you're over-thinking it. It's as simple as "don't be an idiot".

Every law is an ethical standard we follow (or, in some cases, refuse to follow) that comes with real world consequences. To say that ethics don't control our lives is to ignore organized societies of any sort.

Yep. Society has fvck-all impact on the day-to-day lives of people.

That's not what you said originally, but even if that's true, ethics already micromanage our lives. Besides that, how can we assess competence? Is risk taking inherently incompetent? Many people would choose to risk health problems for glory, should they be considered mentally incompetent?

Again, over-thinking it. People like you make the world more difficult than it needs to be.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 12:24:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 11:49:37 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/3/2014 11:19:15 PM, whiteflame wrote:

So, then, why do you have a problem with utilizing ethics instead of the still more nebulous "best"?

I don't understand the question.

You said that the doctor should do what's "best for the patient" rather than focusing on the ethics of their decision, stating that ethics is simply micromanaging. Why is selecting what is subjectively the "best" decision better than selecting what is ethical based on a certain code of ethics?

This is starting to make less and less sense. You're saying that they should do what's best. Best for whom? If you're doing what's best based on what best meets the patient's wishes, then you're acting on that ethical standard and ignoring the ethics of health care professionals to do no harm. If you're refusing the patient, then you're doing the opposite. If you provide a small dose of HGH to them, you're still balancing those ethical decisions, and in fact siding against the patient's wishes by denying them a dose they request in many instances, even if they know full well the probable result. My point is that ethics is involved in any decision that's made, and that the most logical decision that still affords them HGH, the one you've presented, is based on using ethics to control the dose.

Nah, you're over-thinking it. It's as simple as "don't be an idiot".

I'm not overthinking it. There's a very basic and important question involved in determining what's best for the patient. Is it best to adhere strictly to their wishes, or best to determine the most medically sound choice? That decision is often based on the same ethical micromanaging you propose is should be removed from our lives.

Every law is an ethical standard we follow (or, in some cases, refuse to follow) that comes with real world consequences. To say that ethics don't control our lives is to ignore organized societies of any sort.

Yep. Society has fvck-all impact on the day-to-day lives of people.

So, I suppose you don't drive anywhere or interact with anyone? Both of those things place an effect of laws on your life, whether you follow them or not. If you follow them, they have a direct effect on your actions, limiting you. If you don't, then you constantly risk enforcement, which severely limits your actions.

That's not what you said originally, but even if that's true, ethics already micromanage our lives. Besides that, how can we assess competence? Is risk taking inherently incompetent? Many people would choose to risk health problems for glory, should they be considered mentally incompetent?

Again, over-thinking it. People like you make the world more difficult than it needs to be.

I don't see why. You've made a very broad claim - that mental competence should affect whether someone should be micromanaged by a code (or codes) of ethics. I'm asking the obvious follow up: what makes one competent, by whom should competence be decided, and can a competent person make an illogical decision? Are these complicating questions? Yes, but this is a complicated issue. Trying to simplify it as you have means ignoring many of the key issues.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 12:52:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 12:24:03 AM, whiteflame wrote:

You said that the doctor should do what's "best for the patient" rather than focusing on the ethics of their decision, stating that ethics is simply micromanaging. Why is selecting what is subjectively the "best" decision better than selecting what is ethical based on a certain code of ethics?

I didn't say that they should ignore ethics. When did I say that?

I'm not overthinking it. There's a very basic and important question involved in determining what's best for the patient. Is it best to adhere strictly to their wishes, or best to determine the most medically sound choice? That decision is often based on the same ethical micromanaging you propose is should be removed from our lives.

Are their wishes retarded? If so, ignore them. It's as simple as that.

So, I suppose you don't drive anywhere or interact with anyone? Both of those things place an effect of laws on your life, whether you follow them or not. If you follow them, they have a direct effect on your actions, limiting you. If you don't, then you constantly risk enforcement, which severely limits your actions.

Road rules are self-enforcing by virtue of being a Nash Equilibrium; you gain more by cooperating with other road users than by competing with them.

I never encounter any of the other laws because I don't seek out opportunities to break them. Have you tried shoplifting during the lunch hour? There are queues out the door and everybody's rushing around you - it's quicker to just pay and go.

I don't see why. You've made a very broad claim - that mental competence should affect whether someone should be micromanaged by a code (or codes) of ethics. I'm asking the obvious follow up: what makes one competent, by whom should competence be decided, and can a competent person make an illogical decision? Are these complicating questions? Yes, but this is a complicated issue. Trying to simplify it as you have means ignoring many of the key issues.

No, I never said that mentally incompetent people should be micromanaged. That is another straw man fallacy.

Incompetence is when they do a shiitty job and leave a big mess.

Anybody can make illogical decisions.

I'm ignoring the key issues because they're bullshiit. Most ethical debate is just an excuse for ethics committees to exist.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 9:41:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 12:52:36 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/4/2014 12:24:03 AM, whiteflame wrote:

You said that the doctor should do what's "best for the patient" rather than focusing on the ethics of their decision, stating that ethics is simply micromanaging. Why is selecting what is subjectively the "best" decision better than selecting what is ethical based on a certain code of ethics?

I didn't say that they should ignore ethics. When did I say that?

"We can't use ethics to control the lives of others." That implies that we should ignore ethics as a compulsory tool in any instance, or at least (as you clarified later) when the person meets a certain level of competence.

I'm not overthinking it. There's a very basic and important question involved in determining what's best for the patient. Is it best to adhere strictly to their wishes, or best to determine the most medically sound choice? That decision is often based on the same ethical micromanaging you propose is should be removed from our lives.

Are their wishes retarded? If so, ignore them. It's as simple as that.

"Retarded" by whose estimation? The doctor? Their family? Their agent? Who gets to choose when someone is being ridiculous? And on what basis should that person decide? What makes a decision an obviously stupid one? How do we decide?

So, I suppose you don't drive anywhere or interact with anyone? Both of those things place an effect of laws on your life, whether you follow them or not. If you follow them, they have a direct effect on your actions, limiting you. If you don't, then you constantly risk enforcement, which severely limits your actions.

Road rules are self-enforcing by virtue of being a Nash Equilibrium; you gain more by cooperating with other road users than by competing with them.

Then you're following it on the basis that you believe other people will follow them as well, meaning that other people respect Nash Equillibrium as well. Not everyone does. When they or you don't, each is subject to legal systems put in place to prevent them from ignoring the laws. Even if you're right that following the laws has nothing to do with the legal system (and I disagree with you there), disobeying them incurs more harm than simple disruption of Nash Equillibrium.

I never encounter any of the other laws because I don't seek out opportunities to break them. Have you tried shoplifting during the lunch hour? There are queues out the door and everybody's rushing around you - it's quicker to just pay and go.

This is ignoring my analysis here. If you're not seeking to break laws, you at least see some ethical concerns in doing so. It sounds like your basis for decisionmaking is utilitarianism, which is a system of weighing outcomes, but that's still bounded by concerns of enforcement of the legal system put in place or of the angry responses you'll get. In either case, you're adhering to ethics for a logical purpose, but those ethics are still guiding your decision.

I don't see why. You've made a very broad claim - that mental competence should affect whether someone should be micromanaged by a code (or codes) of ethics. I'm asking the obvious follow up: what makes one competent, by whom should competence be decided, and can a competent person make an illogical decision? Are these complicating questions? Yes, but this is a complicated issue. Trying to simplify it as you have means ignoring many of the key issues.

No, I never said that mentally incompetent people should be micromanaged. That is another straw man fallacy.

You keep saying that I'm biting that fallacy, but you're wrong here. You've said that competent individuals should not be governed by ethical micromanaging. That implies that incompetent individuals should. You've also now said, multiple times, I might add, that those making "bad" decisions should not get to make those decisions when it comes to their health, meaning they should be governed by an ethical code of conduct on the basis of their competence in making those decisions.

Incompetence is when they do a shiitty job and leave a big mess.

Who assesses what a "shiitty" job is? Who assesses what will leave a big mess? What is a big mess?

Anybody can make illogical decisions.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

I'm ignoring the key issues because they're bullshiit. Most ethical debate is just an excuse for ethics committees to exist.

I've provided you with a number of concerning issues that you've chosen not to address on any level solely because you have some qualm with ethical debate as a whole, but you've never shown why any of them don't apply.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 1:54:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 5:54:59 AM, apb4y wrote:
What your thoughts on the matter?

I do not really like the idea of eradicating alleles through biotechnology. For example, imagine that becomes fashionable to have blue eyes the brown allele extincts, etc. That doesn't seem as an important issue atm, but a loss of alleles almost always means a loss of adaptability to the environment, and who knows what would happen in the long-term? I also think it would create a serious problem of polarity in social classes, while the rich will get hyper strong, intelligent, immune to all diseases, etc etc through biotechnology, the poor will not only be poor but also considered subhumans and full of defects. Maybe even the jobs will be reserved for those more genetically enhanced, and leave out those that do not want to play with their genome. I also believe that the immunity to diseases and quasi-immortality that could be achieved through biotechnology could lead to a huge increase in global population with the consequent inability of the planet to sustain such a population. The resources would go up in price, and again we would see that polarity of rich-poor classes in action.

In summary, although biotechnology is tempting to solve some serious problem like the cure of lots of diseases, I do not think a lightly use can bring anything good, though I imagine that in the end it should be up to each person what they do with their money and genes.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 2:40:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 1:54:12 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/3/2014 5:54:59 AM, apb4y wrote:
What your thoughts on the matter?

I do not really like the idea of eradicating alleles through biotechnology. For example, imagine that becomes fashionable to have blue eyes the brown allele extincts, etc. That doesn't seem as an important issue atm, but a loss of alleles almost always means a loss of adaptability to the environment, and who knows what would happen in the long-term? I also think it would create a serious problem of polarity in social classes, while the rich will get hyper strong, intelligent, immune to all diseases, etc etc through biotechnology, the poor will not only be poor but also considered subhumans and full of defects. Maybe even the jobs will be reserved for those more genetically enhanced, and leave out those that do not want to play with their genome. I also believe that the immunity to diseases and quasi-immortality that could be achieved through biotechnology could lead to a huge increase in global population with the consequent inability of the planet to sustain such a population. The resources would go up in price, and again we would see that polarity of rich-poor classes in action.

In summary, although biotechnology is tempting to solve some serious problem like the cure of lots of diseases, I do not think a lightly use can bring anything good, though I imagine that in the end it should be up to each person what they do with their money and genes.

I'm pretty sure every criticism you outlined is already the case to a lesser degree due to current access to advancements in medical science that the upper class has and which loser classes do not. It is a serious concern in contemporary anthropological studies.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 2:46:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 9:26:44 AM, SNP1 wrote:

The third, and one I really don't care about (except in the World Cup and Olympics), athletic fairness.

What is it about "athletic fairness," anyway? How is it truly determined how fair an athlete's source of a winning edge is? Why steroids, but not caffeine? Why genetic enhancements and not genetic leverage (a given predisposition that gives one an edge over others)?

I just don't get it; sports are for entertainment. They're not some moral statement on humanity.

How much more awesome would sports be if athletes could have access to everything that could make them bigger and better? If runners started sprinting 30 mph, basketball players started jumping 20 feet, MMA started looking like kung fu movie sequences, and football resulted in tackles of highway pileup proportions, I don't imagine anyone would be complaining. I don't really follow sports, but I'd probably be a sports junkie if it were like that.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 5:23:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 9:41:57 AM, whiteflame wrote:

"We can't use ethics to control the lives of others." That implies that we should ignore ethics as a compulsory tool in any instance, or at least (as you clarified later) when the person meets a certain level of competence.

That was a general statement and you know it. Obviously there are situations where one would intervene in somebody else's life. My point is that these should be the exception and not the rule.

"Retarded" by whose estimation?

Mine.

Then you're following it on the basis that you believe other people will follow them as well, meaning that other people respect Nash Equillibrium as well. Not everyone does. When they or you don't, each is subject to legal systems put in place to prevent them from ignoring the laws. Even if you're right that following the laws has nothing to do with the legal system (and I disagree with you there), disobeying them incurs more harm than simple disruption of Nash Equillibrium.

If you ignore the road rules, you get hit by oncoming traffic. Most people know this and want to avoid it, so most people obey the rules. The traffic cops are only there to:

A. Catch the idiots who are the exception to the rule.

B. Ping people for speeding (speeding, strictly speaking, is not part of the equilibrium unless there's another car in front of you).

C. To fill the coffers of the transportation authorities.

This is ignoring my analysis here. If you're not seeking to break laws, you at least see some ethical concerns in doing so. It sounds like your basis for decisionmaking is utilitarianism, which is a system of weighing outcomes, but that's still bounded by concerns of enforcement of the legal system put in place or of the angry responses you'll get. In either case, you're adhering to ethics for a logical purpose, but those ethics are still guiding your decision.

My reasons may reach the same outcome as an ethical decision, but the fact that I didn't consider ethics means I didn't make an ethical decision. It was purely an assessment of risk and convenience, with no regard for morality or how my actions would affect others. By your definition, anything could be considered an ethical decision, which would render the concept of ethics useless (oh wait, it already is).

You keep saying that I'm biting that fallacy, but you're wrong here. You've said that competent individuals should not be governed by ethical micromanaging. That implies that incompetent individuals should. You've also now said, multiple times, I might add, that those making "bad" decisions should not get to make those decisions when it comes to their health, meaning they should be governed by an ethical code of conduct on the basis of their competence in making those decisions.

Nobody should be governed by ethical micromanaging, regardless of their competence. People can run their own lives; I refuse to limit them for anything less offensive than hitting an old lady over the head with a baseball bat.

Who assesses what a "shiitty" job is? Who assesses what will leave a big mess? What is a big mess?

I do, of course. Stop asking stupid questions.

I've provided you with a number of concerning issues that you've chosen not to address on any level solely because you have some qualm with ethical debate as a whole, but you've never shown why any of them don't apply.

Question: Two pigeons are fighting over bread in a park. One wants the bread because his girlfriend's got four chicks to feed. The other wants the bread because he hasn't eaten in three days. Which pigeon has better claim to the bread?

Answer: They are pigeons; nobody gives a fvck. Unless one of them is getting gang-raped in front of me, or unless I have a personal relationship with one of the pigeons, I'm not going to intervene and don't care about the outcome.

I apply the same logic to all animals, including humans.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 5:51:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 5:23:58 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/4/2014 9:41:57 AM, whiteflame wrote:

"We can't use ethics to control the lives of others." That implies that we should ignore ethics as a compulsory tool in any instance, or at least (as you clarified later) when the person meets a certain level of competence.

That was a general statement and you know it. Obviously there are situations where one would intervene in somebody else's life. My point is that these should be the exception and not the rule.

And yet you haven't supported that either. Even if your claim isn't absolute, you haven't provided any reasoning for why ethics shouldn't be used in this way in the majority of instances, only stating that it shouldn't.

"Retarded" by whose estimation?

Mine.

Gee, and I'm sure you're just the epitome of psychiatric evaluative skills.

Then you're following it on the basis that you believe other people will follow them as well, meaning that other people respect Nash Equillibrium as well. Not everyone does. When they or you don't, each is subject to legal systems put in place to prevent them from ignoring the laws. Even if you're right that following the laws has nothing to do with the legal system (and I disagree with you there), disobeying them incurs more harm than simple disruption of Nash Equillibrium.

If you ignore the road rules, you get hit by oncoming traffic. Most people know this and want to avoid it, so most people obey the rules. The traffic cops are only there to:

A. Catch the idiots who are the exception to the rule.

B. Ping people for speeding (speeding, strictly speaking, is not part of the equilibrium unless there's another car in front of you).

C. To fill the coffers of the transportation authorities.

So the main reason people don't want to drive outside of traffic rules is because they view a utilitarian benefit to themselves and others that results? That's still a moral system governing peoples' lives, even if it's a logically relevant one. You're justifying your reasoning with the very stance you're arguing against.

This is ignoring my analysis here. If you're not seeking to break laws, you at least see some ethical concerns in doing so. It sounds like your basis for decisionmaking is utilitarianism, which is a system of weighing outcomes, but that's still bounded by concerns of enforcement of the legal system put in place or of the angry responses you'll get. In either case, you're adhering to ethics for a logical purpose, but those ethics are still guiding your decision.

My reasons may reach the same outcome as an ethical decision, but the fact that I didn't consider ethics means I didn't make an ethical decision. It was purely an assessment of risk and convenience, with no regard for morality or how my actions would affect others. By your definition, anything could be considered an ethical decision, which would render the concept of ethics useless (oh wait, it already is).

You did consider ethics. An assessment of risk and convenience is a usage of utilitarianism, plain and simple. Just the fact that you didn't think, in the moment "oh, I'm going to use utilitarian principles" doesn't make it any less of an ethical system you're implementing, even if you're just considering the effects on you (though it seems throughout many of your answers that you are considering them as well). And yes, I am basically saying that the vast majority of decision-making is based on an ethical evaluation. I don't see how that makes ethics useless - we choose different criteria for evaluating what is and is not ethical and can come to dramatically different conclusions. Even if we all used the same ethical system, that doesn't make the concepts that back it useless, that just makes them pervasive.

You keep saying that I'm biting that fallacy, but you're wrong here. You've said that competent individuals should not be governed by ethical micromanaging. That implies that incompetent individuals should. You've also now said, multiple times, I might add, that those making "bad" decisions should not get to make those decisions when it comes to their health, meaning they should be governed by an ethical code of conduct on the basis of their competence in making those decisions.

Nobody should be governed by ethical micromanaging, regardless of their competence. People can run their own lives; I refuse to limit them for anything less offensive than hitting an old lady over the head with a baseball bat.

Alright, that's a bit of a shift in reasoning, but fine. You've claimed that hitting a defenseless old woman with a baseball bat is sufficient reason to govern them. My assumption is that you're saying the majority of other instances wouldn't be sufficient. What makes that specific instance special? Why should it be regarded differently?

Who assesses what a "shiitty" job is? Who assesses what will leave a big mess? What is a big mess?

I do, of course. Stop asking stupid questions.

Again, pretty subjective perspective with no real world applicability. You could not feasibly judge every instance where a decision might be made.

I've provided you with a number of concerning issues that you've chosen not to address on any level solely because you have some qualm with ethical debate as a whole, but you've never shown why any of them don't apply.

Question: Two pigeons are fighting over bread in a park. One wants the bread because his girlfriend's got four chicks to feed. The other wants the bread because he hasn't eaten in three days. Which pigeon has better claim to the bread?

Answer: They are pigeons; nobody gives a fvck. Unless one of them is getting gang-raped in front of me, or unless I have a personal relationship with one of the pigeons, I'm not going to intervene and don't care about the outcome.

I apply the same logic to all animals, including humans.

I have no idea what this has to do with our discussion. Your willingness to overlook inequities in the pigeon world is irrelevant to our discussion. We haven't been talking about inequities in the human world, nor have we discussed implementing ethical systems to fix them. You keep saying what your opinion is, but providing absolutely none of the reasoning as to why a broader audience should abide by it.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 6:10:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 5:51:54 PM, whiteflame wrote:

And yet you haven't supported that either. Even if your claim isn't absolute, you haven't provided any reasoning for why ethics shouldn't be used in this way in the majority of instances, only stating that it shouldn't.

I don't have to justify it, just as I don't have to justify not picking my nose in public. Micromanaging people is rude.

Gee, and I'm sure you're just the epitome of psychiatric evaluative skills.

Of course.

So the main reason people don't want to drive outside of traffic rules is because they view a utilitarian benefit to themselves and others that results? That's still a moral system governing peoples' lives, even if it's a logically relevant one. You're justifying your reasoning with the very stance you're arguing against.

Technically, a banana is a vegetable, because all edible plants are vegetables. However, if you go around calling a banana a vegetable, you will confuse everybody you talk to. By the same logic, calling something a moral system when it contradicts the layman's definition of "moral" is just going to confuse everybody. Stop shifting the goalposts around and use the commonly-understood definitions so that we don't argue like idiots for another week.

Alright, that's a bit of a shift in reasoning, but fine. You've claimed that hitting a defenseless old woman with a baseball bat is sufficient reason to govern them. My assumption is that you're saying the majority of other instances wouldn't be sufficient. What makes that specific instance special? Why should it be regarded differently?

Not to govern them, just to stop them from hitting her with a bat. If they want to get drunk and oggle strippers while they're out on bail, I don't think we should govern that decision.

Again, pretty subjective perspective with no real world applicability. You could not feasibly judge every instance where a decision might be made.

Are you questioning my omniscience, mortal?

I have no idea what this has to do with our discussion. Your willingness to overlook inequities in the pigeon world is irrelevant to our discussion. We haven't been talking about inequities in the human world, nor have we discussed implementing ethical systems to fix them. You keep saying what your opinion is, but providing absolutely none of the reasoning as to why a broader audience should abide by it.

I'm not addressing the issues because I don't care. Hence, the pigeon analogy.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 6:16:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't have to justify it,

That's all I have to see. I don't know if you started this forum just to troll, or if all you wanted to do was make your opinion apparent without any interest in that presented by others, but it's obvious that you have no interest in a discussion of the real world concerns involved in using biotechnology as a form of enhancement. I won't be continuing this discussion if you're not willing to have it rationally.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 6:58:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 6:16:13 PM, whiteflame wrote:
I don't have to justify it,

That's all I have to see. I don't know if you started this forum just to troll, or if all you wanted to do was make your opinion apparent without any interest in that presented by others, but it's obvious that you have no interest in a discussion of the real world concerns involved in using biotechnology as a form of enhancement. I won't be continuing this discussion if you're not willing to have it rationally.

Do you honestly expect a serious discussion when all you do is nitpick?
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 7:10:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 6:58:27 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/4/2014 6:16:13 PM, whiteflame wrote:
I don't have to justify it,

That's all I have to see. I don't know if you started this forum just to troll, or if all you wanted to do was make your opinion apparent without any interest in that presented by others, but it's obvious that you have no interest in a discussion of the real world concerns involved in using biotechnology as a form of enhancement. I won't be continuing this discussion if you're not willing to have it rationally.

Do you honestly expect a serious discussion when all you do is nitpick?

It's not nitpicking to point out that the situation is far more complex than you make it out to be. It's not nitpicking to question why you hold the views you do when it comes to ethics, and to have you at least attempt to explain them. It's not nitpicking to point out that there are substantial ethical concerns when it comes to the use of biotechnology as an enhancement of human beings. What you view as nitpicking, I view as essential details. You asked the question, and I gave you an answer. Just because you don't like the level of detail in that answer doesn't mean it's nitpicky.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 7:55:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 7:10:48 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 10/4/2014 6:58:27 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/4/2014 6:16:13 PM, whiteflame wrote:
I don't have to justify it,

That's all I have to see. I don't know if you started this forum just to troll, or if all you wanted to do was make your opinion apparent without any interest in that presented by others, but it's obvious that you have no interest in a discussion of the real world concerns involved in using biotechnology as a form of enhancement. I won't be continuing this discussion if you're not willing to have it rationally.

Do you honestly expect a serious discussion when all you do is nitpick?

It's not nitpicking to point out that the situation is far more complex than you make it out to be. It's not nitpicking to question why you hold the views you do when it comes to ethics, and to have you at least attempt to explain them. It's not nitpicking to point out that there are substantial ethical concerns when it comes to the use of biotechnology as an enhancement of human beings. What you view as nitpicking, I view as essential details. You asked the question, and I gave you an answer. Just because you don't like the level of detail in that answer doesn't mean it's nitpicky.

You're right, I'm being a dick. I apologize.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 8:01:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 7:55:27 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/4/2014 7:10:48 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 10/4/2014 6:58:27 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/4/2014 6:16:13 PM, whiteflame wrote:
I don't have to justify it,

That's all I have to see. I don't know if you started this forum just to troll, or if all you wanted to do was make your opinion apparent without any interest in that presented by others, but it's obvious that you have no interest in a discussion of the real world concerns involved in using biotechnology as a form of enhancement. I won't be continuing this discussion if you're not willing to have it rationally.

Do you honestly expect a serious discussion when all you do is nitpick?

It's not nitpicking to point out that the situation is far more complex than you make it out to be. It's not nitpicking to question why you hold the views you do when it comes to ethics, and to have you at least attempt to explain them. It's not nitpicking to point out that there are substantial ethical concerns when it comes to the use of biotechnology as an enhancement of human beings. What you view as nitpicking, I view as essential details. You asked the question, and I gave you an answer. Just because you don't like the level of detail in that answer doesn't mean it's nitpicky.

You're right, I'm being a dick. I apologize.

I appreciate the apology, though I still think we should end the conversation here. Seems like we've got a lot of differences in our views.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 7:09:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 9:26:44 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/3/2014 5:54:59 AM, apb4y wrote:
What your thoughts on the matter?

It can really help people out. It has the ability to let the crippled walk, to help construction workers, etc.

There are, however, three problems I can see from it.

The first, and a major one, enhancement of soldiers. I think that this needs no explanation.

The second, will it interfere with the evolution of man?

The third, and one I really don't care about (except in the World Cup and Olympics), athletic fairness.

I think that the possibility of any further natural human evolution is a ship which has already sailed, and at present we are busily altering the evolution of countless other species, both plant and animal.