The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
As you loudly did?
I don't recall Ming being a rather vocal proponent of the war. In fact, Ming's opinion was rather under the radar. I can't even remember if he had an opinion that he mentioned.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Originally posted by Elok
The main distinctions between human beings and embryos are the number and differentiation of cells,
Actually, the main distinctions are: the capacity for conscious thought and direct dependence on another human being's body. After all, an infant is much closer to an embyo than it is an adut when it comes to the number of cells, and after a certain level of development, the differenciation of cells isn't that great.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
I guess the problem is the term you are using. Ethics and principles are thought out positions. Ethics, by and large, have to do with the consequnces of your actions upon other human beings, and so the question of harm is not moot.
I think you're mistaken here, twice no less. Ethics are not thought out positions. The way some people try to rationalise them might be, but your set of personal ethics is not something of which you make up your mind after careful deliberation.
I also disagree with your view that ethics primarily concern the way in which your actions affect others. That to me is just an arbitrary subset of a person's ethics.
Well, it is a major philosophical question that thinkers have wrestled with for millenia, but there can only be three possible sources for ethics: either a person thinks about them and comes to a conclusion, they are instilled by others, or they are innate. If they are innate, you need to show how they provide an evolutionary advantage. If they are instilled, then someone thought about them, even if you didn't. So ultimately, all ethics are thought out, either by you or prior to you being given them.
Your point about fraud stealing only a tenth of a cent from each person doesn't demonstrate no harm, only greatly diminshed harm from each person. However, society as a whole is harmed. I'm going to challenge you to come up with an example of something untehical that doesn't harm someone.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
Originally posted by Elok
The main distinctions between human beings and embryos are the number and differentiation of cells,
Actually, the main distinctions are: the capacity for conscious thought and direct dependence on another human being's body. After all, an infant is much closer to an embyo than it is an adut when it comes to the number of cells, and after a certain level of development, the differenciation of cells isn't that great.
And the importance of conscious thought is what, given that an embryo is "just a lump of cells" or "just a blob?" Conscious thought itself is just a set of electrical/chemical impulses. I'm extending the disparaging analogy here for snarky sarcastic effect, not talking seriously. Sheesh.
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Your point about fraud stealing only a tenth of a cent from each person doesn't demonstrate no harm, only greatly diminshed harm from each person. However, society as a whole is harmed. I'm going to challenge you to come up with an example of something untehical that doesn't harm someone.
Organ transplantation is not always without harm either, if you want to split hairs about it. There will be borderline cases, as I mentioned earlier, where for example potential donors will feel pressured into not seeking "shot in the dark" treatment for themselves, in order to still be able to serve as donors. But the question of harm or not isn't the reason why I feel the practice to be against my ethics - just like it wasn't in the parallel example of "victimless" fraud.
I hope this much is clear.
As for other examples, two off the top of my head. Cannibalism and necrophilia. While they may involve harm in some cases, and will almost certainly have detrimental effects on society if they became widespread, most individual cases of these two practices wouldn't involve harm (given that certain conditions were met, like there will have to be conditions met for organ transplants; you can't kill people for the purpose, etc.). But I find them to be unethical nonetheless. Same with organ transplants; no harm involved in the standard case one would think of, but I find it to be unethical.
You do realise, by the way, that ethical beliefs will vary from person to person, that they're not universal? I find it a little curios to be debating whether something is unethical or not, as if we were to hopefully reach some kind of agreement on the subject, that's why I ask. We're not going to, I'm afraid.
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I don't recall Ming being a rather vocal proponent of the war. In fact, Ming's opinion was rather under the radar. I can't even remember if he had an opinion that he mentioned.
Originally posted by Elok
IVF clinics have been removing one cell from an eight-cell lump for years now, just to conduct genetic screening for defects. This testing was supposedly conducted on all embryos, quite routinely.
Instead of removing a cell purely for stem cell research, the company proposes to use cells already removed for diagnostic tests at fertility clinics.
The clinics routinely remove a cell from eight-cell embryos to screen them for possible genetic defects before transferring the embryo into a woman.
Now the company proposes to intercept these cells, allow them to divide in a laboratory dish, and then use one cell for the diagnostic test and the other to derive stem cells. The process would add no additional risk to a diagnostic procedure that already seems quite safe.
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's not something you'd do to an embryo in the womb, but a frozen embryo which is just going to be destroyed eventually has no chance at viability anyway.
Could you explain the morals of this please? If something is about to be destroyed anyway, does that make it fair game?
If a someone is about to be executed, does that make it OK to remove a few organs first?
Actually, the main distinctions are: the capacity for conscious thought and direct dependence on another human being's body.
My main question here is:
At what point of development do you categorise a thing as human?
Otherwise:
Direct dependence on another human being doesn't cut it for me.
I. By that reasoning, many incapacitated patients aren't fully human. They might not be dependent on one, specific person; but I don't see how you draw a conclusive distinction on those grounds.
II. The survival of the embryo is not so much dependent on another person as it is dependent upon a lack of interference with the 'natural order' by that person.
III. Why should "direct dependence" be assigned any moral value anyway?
And:
Obviously, we could go on forever about 'conscious thought.' Could you give us some background on what the phrase actually means in your view?
Tweet
Comment