Stupidity is genetic: Apolyton Eugenics

[Az]

Switch: why should it result in the loss of human life?

UR:

That's the thing, it's not like any other treatment. Suppose there is this gadget you can by with $10m, and it gaurantees you make you $100m. What that means is the rich gets richer because money allows them to access exclusive resources (such as enhanced intelligence), and these resources make them richer still.

This is not the same as getting a cure for an illness, which should be covered by social medical schemes in a well developed country.

That's why I think it should be covered by medical schemes, as well. But there is nothing ethically wrong with the idea, it's the disparity in it's apply which can be problematic.

[Az]

Bumpidy bump bump.

[badman]

I think that improving anyone's life is a good thing so I agree Watson and Azazel.
But it will be essential to make those treatments avaliable for everyone. Otherwise we will have _huge_ problems with a two-classes-society.

[Az]

[Ben Kenobi]

Not quite. The results of the action are the ones to judge the ethical value of the action. If someone is coerced, and doesn't know about it, and never will, there is nothing wrong with that.

Hmm. I think we've hit on a significant divide. Is it right to steal 1$ from Bill Gates simply because he will not notice such a loss?

Is morality dependent on whether someone catches you?

Switch: why should it result in the loss of human life?

Can one gentically engineer without causing the death of a zygote or embryo? Can we test these methods without killing zygotes or embryos?

Is incorrect. why wouldn't it? all we'd have to do is to engineer a certain number of genes instead of a single one.

You seem to assume that each gene operates independently of all the other genes. We don't know how each of our genes interact. Once you have a disease that affects multiple genes, it is much more difficult to fix.

It works like this. Suppose mutations on genes a & b both trigger haemophilia.

Suppose we correct gene a.
Nothing happens.
Again, correct gene a and b,
Nothing happens.
Correct gene b,
Nothing happens.

Why? We have already determined that a and b both effect each other with regards to haemophilia. Changing one gene, will change the other gene at the same time.

[Az]

Hmm. I think we've hit on a significant divide. Is it right to steal 1$ from Bill Gates simply because he will not notice such a loss?

No, because you'll gain nothing from it, and will change your

Is morality dependent on whether someone catches you?

"Catches you" has nothing to do with it. I am talking about the impact of your actions.

Can one gentically engineer without causing the death of a zygote or embryo? Can we test these methods without killing zygotes or embryos?

a) Of course. what's the point of genetically engineering a zygote if it will die?
b) Don't know, actually, but since the zygote is not a human being, it doesn't matter.

[Az]

You seem to assume that each gene operates independently of all the other genes. We don't know how each of our genes interact. Once you have a disease that affects multiple genes, it is much more difficult to fix.

Though a desease can be caused by a genetic interaction, there is usually a single gene changed.

[Ben Kenobi]

b) Don't know, actually, but since the zygote is not a human being, it doesn't matter.

To some of us, it is.

If you don't know, I'll assume the worst, and cite this as a valid reason to oppose genetic engineering.

No, because you'll gain nothing from it, and will change your

So it's okay to coerce someone so long as you fail to profit?

[Az]

So it's okay to coerce someone so long as you fail to profit?

I think I should tell you my ethics, to stop those constant ad hoc questions.

I am a utilitarian consequentialist. That means that I judge things according to their consequences. and what is my scale of judgement? as I said, I am a utilitarian: so, the most moral act would be the one that would make the most people the most happy for the most time possible.

So to your question: It is wrong to steal a dollar, since it won't make you happy, all it will do, is that it will make you more prone to stealing next time, which will probably have bad consequences. This is a rather meaningless act, though.

To some of us, it is.

If you don't know, I'll assume the worst, and cite this as a valid reason to oppose genetic engineering.

Actually, now that I think about it, genetic engineering techniques can be practiced on other creatures as well, it shouldn't differ. Though I still don't think that a zygote is a human being.

[Ben Kenobi]

I am a utilitarian consequentialist.

That's why I mentioned a fundamental divide earlier. Being a Christian, myself, we are not going to have the same answers for these questions because of other philosophical assumptions we have made.

Though I still don't think that a zygote is a human being.

Then take it up in the other thread.

[Az]

That's why I mentioned a fundamental divide earlier. Being a Christian, myself, we are not going to have the same answers for these questions because of other philosophical assumptions we have made.

So do we agree to disagree, or do you want to discuss ethics as well, far far away from the evil "Ayn Rand"

[Ben Kenobi]

That's up to you, after all this is your thread.

Wouldn't want to massively threadjack.