Placeboes are quite definitely experimentations on unwitting humans. There have even been placebo surgeries. It is as much a psychological as it is medical experimentation. I mention this because Adam made a blanket statement that all human experimentation is unethical, and I was merely refuting it.
I do not dispute that different people have different sets of values and morals. You still make no sense in saying that the basis of your opposition to cloning is not based on your values and morals. What you call "your ethics" is most certainly the basis of your argument, as my "ethics" is the basis of my argument. I'm not seeking. The way Webster defined ethics does not allow it to be considered "relative" or even possessive, it is just a study of what is right or wrong. Philosophy as a study is not possessive either. People have different philosophIES, but the academic study of philosophy can now be possessive. I was trying to debate semantics here, not the issue at hand. I am only pointing out logical and semantic problems with what you are saying, not saying that there are universal morals or points of view. I am "dragging" you into an argument over the semantics and logic you use because it clouds the true argument about whether cloning is right or wrong.
Of course my argument is based on my morals and values; we are debating whether or not cloning is ethical. If you are going to debate the morality of something, then morals are going to be the basis of your argument. There certainly are plenty types of debates that don't involve moral arguments, but not ethical debates.
Now I hope you understand that I was making two different debates with you: one is an ethical debate on whether cloing is right or wrong, and one is a semantic/logical argument on how you formed your arguments.
I do not dispute that different people have different sets of values and morals. You still make no sense in saying that the basis of your opposition to cloning is not based on your values and morals. What you call "your ethics" is most certainly the basis of your argument, as my "ethics" is the basis of my argument. I'm not seeking. The way Webster defined ethics does not allow it to be considered "relative" or even possessive, it is just a study of what is right or wrong. Philosophy as a study is not possessive either. People have different philosophIES, but the academic study of philosophy can now be possessive. I was trying to debate semantics here, not the issue at hand. I am only pointing out logical and semantic problems with what you are saying, not saying that there are universal morals or points of view. I am "dragging" you into an argument over the semantics and logic you use because it clouds the true argument about whether cloning is right or wrong.
Of course my argument is based on my morals and values; we are debating whether or not cloning is ethical. If you are going to debate the morality of something, then morals are going to be the basis of your argument. There certainly are plenty types of debates that don't involve moral arguments, but not ethical debates.
Now I hope you understand that I was making two different debates with you: one is an ethical debate on whether cloing is right or wrong, and one is a semantic/logical argument on how you formed your arguments.
Comment