quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

I am not sure what the big deal is; if humans are merely the product of the incidental modification of genetics to begin with, what's a little more tinkering going to matter?

quote:

For the billionth time, 'is' does not equal 'ought'.

Similarly, just because we can do something, does not mean we should. Just because it's 'natural' for large quantities of plutonium to explode, doesn't mean that we should all be free to construct and use our own atomic bombs.

Science can help determine what is, and technology can advance what we can do. Neither of these things suggests, implies or requires that this is how the world should be, or what we should do.

That's what we have philosophy, ethics, laws, and religion for.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
You failed to explain why it would matter if we genetically modified a human.

quote:

I think it would have something to do with the freakish geno-babies that would be produced by this procedure.

I'm an advocate of genetic modification. However, we should not test this technology in a trial-and-error way on intelligent beings. That is unethical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

For the billionth time, 'is' does not equal 'ought'.

Similarly, just because we can do something, does not mean we should. Just because it's 'natural' for large quantities of plutonium to explode, doesn't mean that we should all be free to construct and use our own atomic bombs.

Science can help determine what is, and technology can advance what we can do. Neither of these things suggests, implies or requires that this is how the world should be, or what we should do.

That's what we have philosophy, ethics, laws, and religion for.

You failed to explain why it would matter if we genetically modified a human.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
There is no scientific or naturalistic basis for such ethics.

quote:

That's what we have philosophy, ethics, laws, and religion for.

quote:

Duh.

quote:

I think it would have something to do with the freakish geno-babies that would be produced by this procedure.

quote:

However, we should not test this technology in a trial-and-error way on intelligent beings. That is unethical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Duh.

That isn't an argument, unless you are claiming philosophy, ethics, laws, and religion based on objective truth.

quote:

That was not argument, it was agreement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

That was not argument, it was agreement.

What exactly are you agreeing with?

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Almost all mutations produce "freakish babies", R_S.

quote:

Science does not produce ethics.

Science may produce data that may inform ethical decisions, but it does not itself produce an ethical system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Science does not produce ethics.

Science may produce data that may inform ethical decisions, but it does not itself produce an ethical system.

So, then there would be no reason, from a naturalist or materialist perspective, not to conduct such experiments.

quote:

There is no reason, from a monarchical perspective, not to conduct such experiments. There is no reason, from a laissez-faire capitalist perspective, not to conduct such experiments. There is no reason, from a baseball perspective, not to conduct such experiments. Stop trying to use the wrong tool for the job. The rules of baseball don't tell you whether you should cheat on your spouse or not; neither do Newton's laws.

The people (law makers, scientific advisory boards, etc.) who will make the decision whether or not to allow or forbid such experiments will not themselves perform a scientific experiment to determine if the answer is yes or no. It is not a scientific decision. They will make this ethical decision based on their own ethical systems.

quote:

quote:

Almost all mutations produce "freakish babies", R_S.

No, they don't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

quote:

Almost all mutations produce "freakish babies", R_S.

No, they don't.

Sorry, es, here is the definition of "freak":

freak= any abnormal phenomenon or product or unusual object; anomaly; aberration.

Obviously, a mutation is a freak of nature and the resultant offspring are freakish, by definition.

quote:

Why should an evolutionist be uncomfortable producing freaks of nature since that is the putative mechanism of common descent?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
So by what basis, do you think such experiments should be forbidden? (please don’t say ‘ethical’ or ‘legal’, as such a generic basis in and of itself does not forbid anything)

quote:


Please articulate a specific set of precepts that are roundly accepted by which such experiments can be restricted, and by what authority the restrictions can be imposed.

quote:

I think harvesting organs from prisoners (against their will) should be forbidden. On what basis? It is part of my personal system of ethics. I think it's wrong. I don't see how I can answer your question with anything other than 'ethics'.

quote:

There are many accepted guidelines that govern the ethics and legality of human research. Possibly, one of them already covers the case under consideration. Possibly, two of them offer differing opinions on the situation. Possibly, none of them address it, and it will have to be addressed by committees of ethicists, scientists and politicians. The exact same kind of people who drew up those other guidelines, and following the exact same process.

Ultimately (in the US) our political representatives will probably vote whether to adopt a particular set of rules governing this kind of research. No doubt, each will make his or her own moral reflection on the issue.

quote:

How is this case any different from stem cell research, cloning, test-tube babies, or any of the other ethical quandaries that science has placed in our laps? Society debates the issue, ethics are proposed, morality is argued, laws are passed, protests are held, laws may be changed or modified.

quote:

Atheists and their weak, amoral, religious fellow travelers have so gutted the substance of the notions of ethics and moral considerations that they are effectively worthless. This is why you are utterly incapable of eking out the even a minimal argument against the practice of modifying human embryos, other than the barely thought out, "I just don't like it". Pathetic - it's like watching Neville Chamberlain oppose the scientific establishment while giving ground at every challenge.

quote:

Do I have your permission to quote you verbatim, Jack?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

For the billionth time, 'is' does not equal 'ought'.

Similarly, just because we can do something, does not mean we should. Just because it's 'natural' for large quantities of plutonium to explode, doesn't mean that we should all be free to construct and use our own atomic bombs.

Science can help determine what is, and technology can advance what we can do. Neither of these things suggests, implies or requires that this is how the world should be, or what we should do.

That's what we have philosophy, ethics, laws, and religion for.

You failed to explain why it would matter if we genetically modified a human.

quote:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/the-first-genet.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

I am not sure what the big deal is; if humans are merely the product of the incidental modification of genetics to begin with, what's a little more tinkering going to matter?