Morality of “mad science”

[lrkun]

Considering that the clones are being brought into a potentially low quality of life and don't have a choice in the matter, the priority should be with them and not the scientist because he "feels lonely".

But according to the thread starter:

*for the sake of the thought experiment we shall assume that the clones are grown in a loving, supporting and adequate environment to meet their needs

In your case, did you chose to be born?

The extreme pains I'm talking about are things like a fatal/near fatal wound, feeling suicidal, getting a part of me chopped off. I've never felt any of this, but anyone alive can potentially feel this suffering and if you intentionally create life you'd have to be prepared to take the feeling of guilt since they wouldn't be suffering if their consciousness never existed in the first place.

Don't you think these extreme pains are part of life?

What do you mean when you say: "to be prepared to take the feeling of guilt?"

Did you ask this question to your parents? Do you think they feel guilty when they gave birth to you?

---

These clones, in their own way, because they are sentient, will feel pain; but at the same time, they will feel joy and happiness.

 

[MillionSword]

Realistically though, there would still be people shunning them or treating them differently, or at least the possibility of it.

And to address your other point, I take it you didn't see the edit I made to my last post.

 

[BrainBlow]

I know that if I tomorrow hear that they have created humans through some "mad" scientific process, I'm not going to treat them differently.
How far would I extend my acceptance of the "freaks"?

Lets just say that if my dog suddenly got the ability to talk and have IQ at human level, I would start treating her like a human.
No different with a "freak".

Sure, I'd probably be "shocked" if such creations of life happened and then one day I strike up a conversation with somebody and find out that they were indeed made in a lab.
But it would be more like when when your average parent suddenly have their seemingly straight kid come to them and explain that they are homosexuals.
You may be surprised and have to take it in, but then things go back to normal.

 

[lrkun]

Realistically though, there would still be people shunning them or treating them differently, or at least the possibility of it.

And to address your other point, I take it you didn't see the edit I made to my last post.

Well, reality isn't all fun and games, then again, the experience, be it good or bad is part of what makes it real.

On that which you edited is really of no moment because if you don't feel guilty about having a child, more so you won't feel guilty with creating a life. Or do you mean to say that you are okay with having double standards?

 

[MillionSword]

There is no double standard as I see it. There's a difference between producing offspring and engineering a lifeform. Producing offspring is what we expected to do to propagate our genes and continue our species, and is done through an act of love. However creating a life in the lab carries with it the possibility of human error, which could possibly be detrimental to the being's life. As I said: They're sentient beings and you can't mess around with that stuff unless you know what you're doing, although you can't really know what you're doing unless you mess around with it. To put it simply I would think it wrong for the same reason I'm not a fan of testing chemicals on animals. Or even farming animals for that matter.

(I realise the OP stated that they would be perfectly healthy for the sake of argument, but I've been brought off on this tangent).

 

[lrkun]

There is no double standard as I see it. There's a difference between producing offspring and engineering a lifeform. Producing offspring is what we expected to do to propagate our genes and continue our species, and is done through an act of love. However creating a life in the lab carries with it the possibility of human error, which could possibly be detrimental to the being's life. As I said: They're sentient beings and you can't mess around with that stuff unless you know what you're doing, although you can't really know what you're doing unless you mess around with it. To put it simply I would think it wrong for the same reason I'm not a fan of testing chemicals on animals.

(I realise the OP stated that they would be perfectly healthy for the sake of argument, but I've been brought off on this tangent).

Do you mean to say that human error is not possible in propogating of the species? and do you mean to say that it is not possible to create something, with love, in a lab?

Are you certain about this?

Because to this mad scientist, his creation, likened to babies, might be something that he'll love. And isn't it necessary to experiment in order to ensure that the end result is proper?

 

[MillionSword]

How is producing offspring subject to human error? It's not like we can put in the wrong ingredients because there's only 2 ingredients: Sperm + egg. The only time we can influence the process at all is putting unhealthy chemicals into the mother's body while the baby is in the womb, but even if we do that it's not human error, because we'd know it's harmful to the foetus. We don't need to guide the child's physical development so there is no room for human error. :|

I suppose you could make something in a lab and love it the same, but I'm not sure. I imagine it would really depend on a number of factors such as to what degree it interested the scientist as a hobby, how many trials he went through to try to perfect the process etc.

 

[lrkun]

How is producing offspring subject to human error? It's not like we can put in the wrong ingredients because there's only 2 ingredients: Sperm + egg. The only time we can influence the process at all is putting unhealthy chemicals into the mother's body while the baby is in the womb, but even if we do that it's not human error, because we'd know it's harmful to the foetus. We don't need to guide the child's physical development so there is no room for human error. :|

I suppose you could make something in a lab and love it the same, but I'm not sure. I imagine it would really depend on a number of factors such as to what degree it interested the scientist as a hobby, how many trials he went through to try to perfect the process etc.

As a hobby? I don't see that in the facts provided by the thread starter. Do you find the act of creating a clone or experimentation a hobby? or did you mean to emphasize that experimentation can only be a hobby.

Don't you think, a better term to use is work, effort, search, curiousity or something other than hobby better suits the facts?

I have a little thought experiment I'd like to throw out here trying to identify some moral range. Let us pretend that a "mad scientist" (in the comic book term) has cloned humans by growing them in cows, and they seem perfectly healthy. His (we'll assume male) reason for this is because he desires children but never had any luck with women. Right? Wrong? Evil?
Now let's say that he wished to improve on his cloned "offspring" by genetically changing them, eventually leading to something non-human, though still perfectly sentient. Again, is it right? Wrong? Evil?
What if he created more than 1 or 2, and made say, 50 before anyone found out, does that change your position?
Finally why do hold that position?

*for the sake of the thought experiment we shall assume that the clones are grown in a loving, supporting and adequate environment to meet their needs

 

[MillionSword]

Oh my god lrkun, will you use your brain. I'd say it's pretty safe to assume that science would be a hobby of a mad scientist since he would obviously be interested in science. And why would anyone say that experimentation can only be a hobby? Also the words work, effort, search and curiousity can all be attributed to science as a hobby. All I was saying is that it's obviously going to be of some interest to the scientist and that it is a possibility that his curiosity and looking at it as some sort of project or experiment might cloud or over shadow any feelings of love towards the life he has created in the lab. Fuck.

 

[lrkun]

Oh my god lrkun, will you use your brain. I'd say it's pretty safe to assume that science would be a hobby of a mad scientist since he would obviously be interested in science. And why would anyone say that experimentation can only be a hobby? Also the words work, effort, search and curiousity can all be attributed to science as a hobby. All I was saying is that it's obviously going to be of some interest to the scientist and that it is a possibility that his curiosity and looking at it as some sort of porject or experiment might cloud or over shadow any feelings of love towards the life he has created in the lab. Fuck.

Temper temper. If you lose your temper, you won't enjoy the topic and the exchange of ideas. :lol:

Anyway, do not assume. ^^

---

Thread starter, what say you? Is the scientist in question doing these experimentations as a hobby only?

---

P.s. you don't need to call me god. ^^ :lol:

 

[scienceguy8888]

I'm amazed by the answers, which basically boil into 1 of 3 categories:
1)Its ethically fine, no harm done
2)If the process brings suffering its unethical, but otherwise no harm done
3)Humans will shun them! Unethical!
Now I wonder why no.3 should be part of this. I'm sure that people who are shunned might even say that that made them stronger as a person, and so on and so on. So why should potential shunning make it unethical? Isn't it like saying "this medicine will cure your terminal disease" and you responding "but it gives you a rash and a mild headache" and discontinuing its production?

 

[lrkun]

I'm amazed by the answers, which basically boil into 1 of 3 categories:
1)Its ethically fine, no harm done
2)If the process brings suffering its unethical, but otherwise no harm done
3)Humans will shun them! Unethical!
Now I wonder why no.3 should be part of this. I'm sure that people who are shunned might even say that that made them stronger as a person, and so on and so on. So why should potential shunning make it unethical? Isn't it like saying "this medicine will cure your terminal disease" and you responding "but it gives you a rash and a mild headache" and discontinuing its production?

I submit, no. 3, to be an interesting case. It depends on how you define ethical. Based on an earlier poster's opinion, it is the agreed upon happiness of the whole, so in this case, if the majority does not find happiness in the creation of those clones, it follows that the act of creating them is unethical.

I think it is a bastardised definition of utilitarianism. First, it is correctly define as for the beneficial use of which the purpose is for the happiness of the majority.

 

[MillionSword]

lrkun I don't assume until, as I said, I feel it is safe to assume.

Also, Scienceguy8888 is the "terminal disease" in your analogy supposed to represent not existing?

 

[lrkun]

lrkun I don't assume until, as I said, I feel it is safe to assume.

If this is so, then it is not certain that the mad scientist in question experiments as a hobby.

 

[MillionSword]

 

[lrkun]

scienceguy(with numbers)

What would you consider as moral?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

...
3)Humans will shun them! Unethical!
Now I wonder why no.3 should be part of this. ...

I said that if it was going to live in a society amoungst humans, we would (by sheer nature) end up killing it. Or locking it in a cage. Or torturing it.
If you're so naieve as to believe that humans are incapable of such actions, I can bring plenty of instances to support my claim. But you should, by a simple examinatin of human history, be able to deduce the same idea that I have.

 

[lrkun]

...
3)Humans will shun them! Unethical!
Now I wonder why no.3 should be part of this. ...

I said that if it was going to live in a society amoungst humans, we would (by sheer nature) end up killing it. Or locking it in a cage. Or torturing it.
If you're so naieve as to believe that humans are incapable of such actions, I can bring plenty of instances to support my claim. But you should, by a simple examinatin of human history, be able to deduce the same idea that I have.

I am persuaded by your opinion on the matter. However, I have a question. Is the act of killing the clones/locking the clones/torturing the clones ethical?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

...
I am persuaded by your opinion on the matter. However, I have a question. Is the act of killing the clones/locking the clones/torturing the clones ethical?

If this person was a clone, would it make the picture any less horrific?

It's a sentient being.

 

[lrkun]

...
I am persuaded by your opinion on the matter. However, I have a question. Is the act of killing the clones/locking the clones/torturing the clones ethical?

If this person was a clone, would it make the picture any less horrific?

It's a sentient being.

What do you mean ? How does this answer my question? ^^

---

True enough, the image is disturbing, and according to that image the character killed herself. But how am I supposed to relate that as a reply to my question?