Morality of “mad science”

[lrkun]

I'll take that as you conceding defeat.

Cheers!

:lol: I never even considered engaging you in a contest of wit. It will only be a waste of my time and yours.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

I'll take that as you conceding defeat.

Cheers!

:lol: I never even considered engaging you in a contest of wit. It will only be a waste of my time.

Heh, you're a sore loser Have fun pretending you don't care and attempting to belittle me.

 

[lrkun]

Heh, you're a sore loser Have fun pretending you don't care and attempting to belittle me.

I'm disappointed. Be civil. I have nothing to gain by belittling you, and your argument in relation to the topic is okay.

I'll take that as you conceding defeat.

Cheers!

:lol: I never even considered engaging you in a contest of wit. It will only be a waste of my time and yours.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

I'm disappointed. Be civil. I have nothing to gain by belittling you, and your argument in relation to the topic is okay.

[
:lol: I never even considered engaging you in a contest of wit. It will only be a waste of my time and yours.

Ah the edit button, allowing dishonesty since it's inception. Nice try.

 

[lrkun]

Ah the edit button, allowing dishonesty since it's inception. Nice try.

:roll:

I dislike arguing for the sake of arguing. I'd understand if it was related to the topic. I'll ignore your allegations because it seems that you're looking for someone to fight with. I'm not interested.

---

On the topic. Since the earlier facts stated that he is a mad scientist in the context of a comic universe. Maybe, the morals of this scientist is different from that of a normal person. I'd like to request the thread starter to clarify if he is asking the readers to base their morality on the view point of the reader or on the view point of the mad scientist, and if it is the latter, I'd like to request that the thread starter will specify what is moral in the view point of the mad scientist.

 

[scienceguy8888]

well the scientist will always see what ever he is doing as moral, regardless....

 

[lrkun]

well the scientist will always see what ever he is doing as moral, regardless....

So, are we to judge the scientist based on our own personal view on morals or based on the view of the scientist or a standard set of morals?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

well the scientist will always see what ever he is doing as moral, regardless....

So, are we to judge the scientist based on our own personal view on morals or based on the view of the scientist or a standard set of morals?

BOOM HEADSHOT.

The problem with saying that we don't judge someone based upon our own personal morals is that you have made every Crusade, Massacre, and Holocaust moral - because it was moral to at least one person. Also, you have made every book-burning and religious sacrifice moral. Every insane person in a mental institution for slaughtering their children is now moral, because the voices told them to in order to save the world.

We judge everyone based upon our own morals. 24/7, 365.

This act seems barbaric and inhumane on paper, but when shit hits the fan it still happens for the better.

 

[lrkun]

BOOM HEADSHOT.

The problem with saying that we don't judge someone based upon our own personal morals is that you have made every Crusade, Massacre, and Holocaust moral - because it was moral to at least one person. Also, you have made every book-burning and religious sacrifice moral. Every insane person in a mental institution for slaughtering their children is now moral, because the voices told them to in order to save the world.

We judge everyone based upon our own morals. 24/7, 365.

This act seems barbaric and inhumane on paper, but when shit hits the fan it still happens for the better.

Is it similar to prejudice?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Is it similar to prejudice?

Not exactly.
Prejudice is an assumption we make on a person without taking into account their actions and other significant factors. Literally, it's derived from the words "Pre Judgement"
If you take into considerations one's actions - such as giving to charity, and what their actual stance on a particular issue, then one is free to make a judgment on the person.

For example - let us take to Holocaust.
One would hate the Germans for what happened, but that was not the whole of Germany's fault. In fact, not that large a percentage of the entire German population even knew what was happening.
Not even that many members of the National Socialist (Nazi) Party knew what was going on. In fact, the majority of the population was more concentrated on the war, and the plot was more the doings of the most anti-Semitic Nazi elite.

Yet I know people today that would still blame all of Germans for the actions of a few.

On one hand, we have people who will blame all Germans, regardless of the everyday struggle and strife of the common German (prejudice). And then we have people who know this fact, and only blame the percentage in the Nazi Party for the entire affair that cost so many lives.

I reserve the right to judge someone based upon their actions.

 

[lrkun]

So how will you recognize if a certain act is moral or immoral? Is it not because you must atleast know something about it, in order to contradict what is in front of you from what you might consider ideal?

 

[Exmortis]

I know this is off topic so please forgive me for possibly cluttering up the thread.
Irkun you seem particularly active in thread. Are the dynamics of morality really so interesting from your perspective?

 

[Daealis]

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?

I have no problem with that. Being able to create healthy humans via such methods would be huge news to me and the only problem I see without thinking too much to it, is the schoolyard bullying being valid for once.
"Your mom is a fat cow!"
-'How the hell did you know that? It's classified, my dad hasn't told it to anyone yet!'

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?

Again, I see no problem with this. I'd even endorse this type of behavior, to improve on the whole of mankind. I haven't viewed man as any sort of "finalized" product, but rather a good base for us to improve on, when we advance enough. It would be great fun to actually see genetic modification get mainstreamed and the reaction of religious organisations to that. Would they deny entrance to church if your parents wanted you to be better than the average in the last generation?

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?

I can kinda see both sides here. I understand how it would be disturbing that a guy has created a human just for the sake of company and even how it would terrify some that he then proceeded to alter them in effort to improve their properties.

But I am myself inclined to approve the whole thing. It's parenting no matter how you look at it. He just grew them in a cow, but after birth the rest is pretty normal caring and tending to the basic needs of your kid.

I'm more interested to how would the world and governments react, if there was indeed 50 of said chimaeras with superior abilities to us humans. That would show that his method is reliable and produces more or less constant results, so it is something that could be used in eugenics.

 

[lrkun]

I know this is off topic so please forgive me for possibly cluttering up the thread.
Irkun you seem particularly active in thread. Are the dynamics of morality really so interesting from your perspective?

I'm a fan of mad scientists. ^^

I like the idea of genetic engineering.

Morality just happened to be the issue raised by the thread starter.

 

[BrainBlow]

m'yes, mad scientists can be awesome.