Morality of “mad science”

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

What do you mean ?

I'm implying that the detainment / torture / murder of any sentient being, created or not, is horrific and unethical on that simple terms.

 

[lrkun]

What do you mean ?

I'm implying that the detainment / torture / murder of any sentient being, created or not, is horrific and unethical on that simple terms.

I see. Thanks.

If I may, I'll try to connect the dots in order to make a line.

If the clones are shunned by humans, as when the humans would detain, torture, murder them, then the humans are being unethical for doing so. Does this mean that the creation of the clones and the act of the humans as a consequence is unethical?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

... If the clones are shunned by humans, as when the humans would detain, torture, murder them, then the humans are being unethical for doing so. Does this mean that the creation of the clones and the act of the humans as a consequence is unethical?

Yes.
It would be like creating a person in order to be tortured and killed.

 

[lrkun]

... If the clones are shunned by humans, as when the humans would detain, torture, murder them, then the humans are being unethical for doing so. Does this mean that the creation of the clones and the act of the humans as a consequence is unethical?

Yes.
It would be like creating a person in order to be tortured and killed.

I see your point of view. Thanks.

 

[Exmortis]

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 think I might know what Duvelthehobbit666 is talking about, please stop me if I am incorrect.

Morality is dictated by the immidiate community. The actions accepted by the majority of a community are labelled as moral and those which are not are labeled as immoral.
Also, to clarify upon what I ment by immidiate community. Suppose an isolated area, such as a small village on a offshore island, and another small village far inland on another mass of land on the other side of the planet. Suppose travel between the two was impossible. Furthermore, the village on the island has a small population and live in a fairly peaceful, innocent environment with plentiful resources. Where the second village lives in a far more barren reigion where it has to compete for vital resources with other hostile tribes just in order to preserve themselves. Will the ethical standard be the same for both villages.
Perhaps in some ways, however the needs of the people will decide just what is ethical and what isn't. So a group of people who often need to kill their own kind on a regular basis may lessen their moral objection to killing their own kind or proforming other acts such robbery, canibalism or just simple violance to stay alive. Where as, a peaceful community with less pressure on their society may be free to create a far larger list of immoral actions.

In conclusion, whatever makes a society feel contented (happy) whether it is fufilling their needs or making their enviroment less threatening (artificially created children may activate the fear of the unknown trait human have. Thus it could make an environment more threatening) may be regarded as an accept morally acceptible act.


Did I get that right?

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

@AdmiralPeacock,

How do you relate the rule of utilitarianism to the issue which is raised by the thread starter?

I said Rule Utilitarianism as apposed to Act Utilitarianism, not "rule of utilitarianism"


Utilitarianism is about maximizing happiness and well being while minimizing suffering. Act Utilitarianism is essentially the guidelines for immediate decision making and Rule Utilitarianism takes a longer view. I would apply Rule Utilitarianism as it talks more to what will ultimately maximize happiness and well being while minimizing suffering - in the case of the thread starter, the eventual benefits to humanity and our fellow animals out way the short term discontent or dissent.

That is providing the conditions I explored in my OP meet an acceptable conclusion.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

@AdmiralPeacock,

How do you relate the rule of utilitarianism to the issue which is raised by the thread starter?

I said Rule Utilitarianism as apposed to Act Utilitarianism, not "rule of utilitarianism"


Utilitarianism is about maximizing happiness and well being while minimizing suffering. Act Utilitarianism is essentially the guidelines for immediate decision making and Rule Utilitarianism takes a longer view. I would apply Rule Utilitarianism as it talks more to what will ultimately maximize happiness and well being while minimizing suffering - in the case of the thread starter, the eventual benefits to humanity and our fellow animals out way the short term discontent or dissent.

That is providing the conditions I explored in my OP meet an acceptable conclusion.

@Irkun: Rule Utilitarianism is very similar to Kant's Categorical Imperative, if you are familiar with it. Simply replace 'logically inconstant' with 'detrimental to society/humanity.'

 

[lrkun]

@AdmiralPeacock,

How do you relate the rule of utilitarianism to the issue which is raised by the thread starter?

I said Rule Utilitarianism as apposed to Act Utilitarianism, not "rule of utilitarianism"


Utilitarianism is about maximizing happiness and well being while minimizing suffering. Act Utilitarianism is essentially the guidelines for immediate decision making and Rule Utilitarianism takes a longer view. I would apply Rule Utilitarianism as it talks more to what will ultimately maximize happiness and well being while minimizing suffering - in the case of the thread starter, the eventual benefits to humanity and our fellow animals out way the short term discontent or dissent.

That is providing the conditions I explored in my OP meet an acceptable conclusion.

What do you mean by the word happiness? I ask because happiness is a very broad word, can you give a spicific situation?

@Irkun: Rule Utilitarianism is very similar to Kant's Categorical Imperative, if you are familiar with it. Simply replace 'logically inconstant' with 'detrimental to society/humanity.'

I'm not familiar with it. Could you explain it in a more detailed matter? or give an example so I can see the situation?

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

What do you mean by the word happiness? I ask because happiness is a very broad word, can you give a spicific situation?

@Irkun: Rule Utilitarianism is very similar to Kant's Categorical Imperative, if you are familiar with it. Simply replace 'logically inconstant' with 'detrimental to society/humanity.'

I'm not familiar with it. Could you explain it in a more detailed matter? or give an example so I can see the situation?

By happiness I essentially meant Utility - it's often more useful in it's inherent explanatory powers due to its general context. Not always. Utility can be defined as preference satisfaction, pleasure, knowledge or general well being.

As to how it applies - it depends on what flavour of Utilitarian you are.
Act utilitarianism, a person performs an action that will benefit the most people, despite personal feelings or the social constructs such as laws. Rule utilitarianism incorporates the law and contemplates fairness. A rule utilitarian tries to benefit the most people but through the fairest and most just means available.

Now there are different gradients of Rule utilitarianism - from Weak Rule Utilitarianism to Strong Rule Utilitarianism. Strong Rule Utilitarianism is absolutist and does not allow for exception; i.e. Lying is wrong, therefore there is no justifiable reason lie. Weak Rule Utilitarianism is more flexible, positing that while one should attempt to follow the rule, exceptions are allowed under certain conditions.

Classic example: 1940s Germany, you're harbouring a family of Jews in your attic - Gestapo shows up and asks you if you're hiding anyone. A person that adhered to Strong Rule Utilitarianism would have to turn in his Jewish friends to stay consistent with this moral ethical system, a Weak Rule Utilitarian can lie his ass off in this situation.

In truth I subscribe to a combination of Two-Level Utilitarianism with Motive Utilitarianism shading in the weak spots.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

@Irkun,
Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

I always do a bad job of explaining this, so bare with me... basically behave as though the manner of your actions were copied by everyone. Imagine for instance, if you were to lie, that lying would now become the universal norm. This, among other things, would entirely defeat the purpose of language - the action is therefore wrong.

By the way, Kant would absolutely hate that I compared his deontological moral system with Utilitarianism - which he thought was too subjective. Kant's work can basically be defined as an attempt to arrive at objective morality through reason alone. That said, I tend to view him as largely compatible with Rule Utilitarianism and even elements of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. I often use one, or a combination of these, when making moral decisions.

 

[lrkun]

By happiness I essentially meant Utility - it's often more useful in it's inherent explanatory powers due to its general context. Not always. Utility can be defined as preference satisfaction, pleasure, knowledge or general well being.

As to how it applies - it depends on what flavour of Utilitarian you are.
Act utilitarianism, a person performs an action that will benefit the most people, despite personal feelings or the social constructs such as laws. Rule utilitarianism incorporates the law and contemplates fairness. A rule utilitarian tries to benefit the most people but through the fairest and most just means available.

Now there are different gradients of Rule utilitarianism - from Weak Rule Utilitarianism to Strong Rule Utilitarianism. Strong Rule Utilitarianism is absolutist and does not allow for exception; i.e. Lying is wrong, therefore there is no justifiable reason lie. Weak Rule Utilitarianism is more flexible, positing that while one should attempt to follow the rule, exceptions are allowed under certain conditions.

Classic example: 1940s Germany, you're harbouring a family of Jews in your attic - Gestapo shows up and asks you if you're hiding anyone. A person that adhered to Strong Rule Utilitarianism would have to turn in his Jewish friends to stay consistent with this moral ethical system, a Weak Rule Utilitarian can lie his ass off in this situation.

In truth I subscribe to a combination of Two-Level Utilitarianism with Motive Utilitarianism shading in the weak spots.

I see. I can see what you mean. Happiness is a word with many meanings of which is highly dependent on the person's point of view and is difficult to know what context is being used unless it is expressly stated. Thanks for the clarification.

@Irkun,
Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

I always do a bad job of explaining this, so bare with me... basically behave as though the manner of your actions were copied by everyone. Imagine for instance, if you were to lie, that lying would now become the universal norm. This, among other things, would entirely defeat the purpose of language - the action is therefore wrong.

By the way, Kant would absolutely hate that I compared his deontological moral system with Utilitarianism - which he thought was too subjective. Kant's work can basically be defined as an attempt to arrive at objective morality through reason alone. That said, I tend to view him as largely compatible with Rule Utilitarianism and even elements of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. I often use one, or a combination of these, when making moral decisions.

The concept, as you explain it, is a bit fuzzy because I'm not sure if the purpose of language is to tell the truth, is it not more accurate to say that the purpose of language is to communicate your ideas with clarity that the person at the receiving end is able to comprehend or understand what you mean? Also, is it not true that language is a tool to communicate, so whether it is the truth or not is highly dependent on the circumstance? I'm asking because I'm not sure if the sole purpose of language is to speak the truth, then again, if you said that it goes against the logic, I will agree with you because logic is in pursuit of the truth.

The issue or the heart of my confusion is, what should be the metric in order to determine what is right or what is wrong upon application of categorical imperative.

Here's a hypothetical scenario, supposing:

If A kisses B as a greeting, and a kiss becomes a universal norm as a greeting, how will I know if this form of greeting is right or wrong?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

@Irkun,
Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

I always do a bad job of explaining this, so bare with me... basically behave as though the manner of your actions were copied by everyone. Imagine for instance, if you were to lie, that lying would now become the universal norm. This, among other things, would entirely defeat the purpose of language - the action is therefore wrong.

By the way, Kant would absolutely hate that I compared his deontological moral system with Utilitarianism - which he thought was too subjective. Kant's work can basically be defined as an attempt to arrive at objective morality through reason alone. That said, I tend to view him as largely compatible with Rule Utilitarianism and even elements of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. I often use one, or a combination of these, when making moral decisions.

The concept, as you explain it, is a bit fuzzy because I'm not sure if the purpose of language is to tell the truth, is it not more accurate to say that the purpose of language is to communicate your ideas with clarity that the person at the receiving end is able to comprehend or understand what you mean? Also, is it not true that language is a tool to communicate, so whether it is the truth or not is highly dependent on the circumstance? I'm asking because I'm not sure if the sole purpose of language is to speak the truth, then again, if you said that it goes against the logic, I will agree with you because logic is in pursuit of the truth.

The issue or the heart of my confusion is, what should be the metric in order to determine what is right or what is wrong upon application of categorical imperative.

Here's a hypothetical scenario, supposing:

If A kisses B as a greeting, and a kiss becomes a universal norm as a greeting, how will I know if this form of greeting is right or wrong?

Well, to tell a lie depends upon the use of language. Language is essentially the act of expressing meaning; communicating. The whole enterprise is predicated on the assumption that what the other person says is more or less an accurate representation of their meaning. Indeed a lie depends upon this assumption, or it wouldn't work. Now use the Imperative: imagine everyone were to lie all the time. Suddenly none of this is possible, because nothing we say can ever be an accurate representation of our meaning. Language, in its entirety, collapses - and with it lying. Lying is thus logically inconsistent, and therefore wrong.

In essence, the metric of Kant's Imperative is whether an action is logically consistent. Lying defeats the purpose of language upon which it depends, it is not logically consistent. Your kissing scenario is a perfect example of something that is not immoral because it is not inconsistent with the purpose of a greeting or vice versa - though I suppose this would depend somewhat on the manner of said kiss.

The problems with the categorical imperative are essentially twofold:
1) It has a hard time omitting for exceptions. You can do it, but its tricky.
2) It's not all that intuitive, you often have to really sit down and think about your approach to the subject; and it's very easy to accidentally fall into Rule Utilitarianism - just say, "well if everyone lied all the time then that would obviously be bad" and leave it at that.

In fact, I tend to think that a lot of people who advocate Kant's approach are probably Rule Utilitarians and just don't realize it. Especially among first-year Philosophy students.

 

[lrkun]

Well, to tell a lie depends upon the use of language. Language is essentially the act of expressing meaning; communicating. The whole enterprise is predicated on the assumption that what the other person says is more or less an accurate representation of their meaning. Indeed a lie depends upon this assumption, or it wouldn't work. Now use the Imperative: imagine everyone were to lie all the time. Suddenly none of this is possible, because nothing we say can ever be an accurate representation of our meaning. Language, in its entirety, collapses - and with it lying. Lying is thus logically inconsistent, and therefore wrong.

In essence, the metric of Kant's Imperative is whether an action is logically consistent. Lying defeats the purpose of language upon which it depends, it is not logically consistent. Your kissing scenario is a perfect example of something that is not immoral because it is not inconsistent with the purpose of a greeting or vice versa - though I suppose this would depend somewhat on the manner of said kiss.

The problems with the categorical imperative are essentially twofold:
1) It has a hard time omitting for exceptions. You can do it, but its tricky.
2) It's not all that intuitive, you often have to really sit down and think about your approach to the subject; and it's very easy to accidentally fall into Rule Utilitarianism - just say, "well if everyone lied all the time then that would obviously be bad" and leave it at that.

In fact, I tend to think that a lot of people who advocate Kant's approach are probably Rule Utilitarians and just don't realize it. Especially among first-year Philosophy students.

How do you know that kissing is proper as a greeting? What will be your basis? Does this mean that we must have a certain degree of understanding if an act is right or wrong?

Supposing to A group, kissing is proper. Supposing to B group, kissing is not proper. How will I know if kissing is moral or not?

---

This is what I think I understood from your explanation. The act must be for the common benefit or the act must not hurt others, and the act must be consistent.

Ex. To A group, a kiss is a proper greeting. To B group, kissing is not a proper greeting.

X kisses Y, as a greeting, since it is accepted in their group, it is moral.

X kisses Z, as a greeting, since to Z who is from B group, as when a kiss is not a proper greeting, in the eyes of Z, the act done by X is not moral; but in the eyes of X, it is moral.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Well, to tell a lie depends upon the use of language. Language is essentially the act of expressing meaning; communicating. The whole enterprise is predicated on the assumption that what the other person says is more or less an accurate representation of their meaning. Indeed a lie depends upon this assumption, or it wouldn't work. Now use the Imperative: imagine everyone were to lie all the time. Suddenly none of this is possible, because nothing we say can ever be an accurate representation of our meaning. Language, in its entirety, collapses - and with it lying. Lying is thus logically inconsistent, and therefore wrong.

In essence, the metric of Kant's Imperative is whether an action is logically consistent. Lying defeats the purpose of language upon which it depends, it is not logically consistent. Your kissing scenario is a perfect example of something that is not immoral because it is not inconsistent with the purpose of a greeting or vice versa - though I suppose this would depend somewhat on the manner of said kiss.

The problems with the categorical imperative are essentially twofold:
1) It has a hard time omitting for exceptions. You can do it, but its tricky.
2) It's not all that intuitive, you often have to really sit down and think about your approach to the subject; and it's very easy to accidentally fall into Rule Utilitarianism - just say, "well if everyone lied all the time then that would obviously be bad" and leave it at that.

In fact, I tend to think that a lot of people who advocate Kant's approach are probably Rule Utilitarians and just don't realize it. Especially among first-year Philosophy students.

How do you know that kissing is proper as a greeting? What will be your basis? Does this mean that we must have a certain degree of understanding if an act is right or wrong?

Supposing to A group, kissing is proper. Supposing to B group, kissing is not proper. How will I know if kissing is moral or not?

---

This is what I think I understood from your explanation. The act must be for the common benefit or the act must not hurt others, and the act must be consistent.

Ex. To A group, a kiss is a proper greeting. To B group, kissing is not a proper greeting.

X kisses Y, as a greeting, since it is accepted in their group, it is moral.

X kisses Z, as a greeting, since to Z who is from B group, as when a kiss is not a proper greeting, in the eyes of Z, the act done by X is not moral; but in the eyes of X, it is moral.

Now you see Irkun, I don't particularly like the question, because I don't think that this is the sort of thing Kant was concerning himself with. I'm honestly somewhat unsure how to even apply the CI to this sort of thing (see point two above.) However, a kiss is generally conceived of as a sign of affection, which doesn't seem to me to contradict the purpose of a greeting - I threw that last bit out there mostly because I find the idea of people randomly open-mouth kissing strangers as a greeting somewhat amusing. Generally though, when you enter the subjective like this, you've left the Imperative; which concerns itself only with objectivity.

For more information, consult the Critique of Pure Reason, which also doubles nicely as a sleeping aid should need arise.

 

[Memeticemetic]

For more information, consult the Critique of Pure Reason, which also doubles nicely as a sleeping aid should need arise.

Emphasis mine.

Truest. Statement. Ever.

 

[lrkun]

It's to complicated :s Hehe

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I mostly just like him because of religious sorts who say there's objective morality, so therefore there's a god.

I know Kant believed in a god, but it's as good as his life's work to show how that might not be the case, and I have yet to hear anyone seriously acknowledge the point. But we're pretty for off topic now, so I should stop.

 

[scienceguy8888]

:shock: Wow, my topic has derailed a few miles here"¦.
Focus"¦. Focus"¦. Morality"¦ and more fun, why said scenario is or isn't immoral?
Or for those who may have gotten tired it as stated, and maybe to counter act the "it's immoral cause humans will hate them"¦..ect" how about this little addition; say the scientist foresaw the human abuse for his creations and instead made them all masochists? Now how does that change the arguments? Was that immoral on its own?

 

[lrkun]

:shock: Wow, my topic has derailed a few miles here"¦.
Focus"¦. Focus"¦. Morality"¦ and more fun, why said scenario is or isn't immoral?
Or for those who may have gotten tired it as stated, and maybe to counter act the "it's immoral cause humans will hate them"¦..ect" how about this little addition; say the scientist foresaw the human abuse for his creations and instead made them all masochists? Now how does that change the arguments? Was that immoral on its own?

I submit that making his clones masochistic is immoral.masochism is not a normal thing to have.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

:shock: Wow, my topic has derailed a few miles here"¦.
Focus"¦. Focus"¦. Morality"¦ and more fun, why said scenario is or isn't immoral?
Or for those who may have gotten tired it as stated, and maybe to counter act the "it's immoral cause humans will hate them"¦..ect" how about this little addition; say the scientist foresaw the human abuse for his creations and instead made them all masochists? Now how does that change the arguments? Was that immoral on its own?

I submit that making his clones masochistic is immoral.masochism is not a normal thing to have.

What do you mean by the word normal? I ask because happiness is a very broad word, can you give a spicific situation?