(June 22, 2011 at 6:29 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Do you see no difference in killing an animal for sustenance and keeping it alive while using it as a puppet?

I do.

Might I respectfully ask you to be specific about the differences you see so that I might directly pour my scorn at them instead of having to ridicule them vicariously by ridiculing you?

---

(June 21, 2011 at 5:11 pm)Napoleon Wrote:

(June 21, 2011 at 5:09 pm)BloodyHeretic Wrote: Well does anyone think it's wrong that they've built chips into the brains of insects and can remote fly them around a lab? Would it be wrong if they did it to chimps?

Absolutely it's wrong. I see no purpose that it serves, other than experimentation.

No, it's not automatically wrong for other purpose either. There are cicumstances I can easily think of when I would find it preferable to steer a chimp by a chip in its brain than to send a human in.

Well, if you want to paint my thoughts red, the question is one of consumption versus enslavement. If this science is determined ethically right, then perhaps it will be OK next to create zombies? Many animals consume other animals for sustenance: Few play with their prey like this. It seems we mock the notion of gods but have no problem substituting ourselves for what we revile. Perhaps there is no self-determination in a rat, or a beetle, but I question the morality of taking away any chance it has for autonomy while leaving it alive to do the bidding of an outside entity.

(June 22, 2011 at 6:17 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: The concept of rights is an interesting one -- do explain where and what has rights? And why. Definitely why.

They're a fabrication, a set of subjectively imposed moral absolutes often incompatible with the logical conclusions of someone's own morality, for instance; people like to say stuff such as 'you have a right to life', that is until someone is pointing a gun at a child when all of a sudden it's 'morally good' to unload a few rounds into their brain - In reality everything is context dependent, life is valuable to an extent, at which point it becomes an obstacle.

I tend to follow a rule of thumb such as "Do whatever the fuck you like so long as it doesn't involve using force, fraud, coercion or neglecting your responsibilities", it's only after someone has done that do we have legitimate reasons for action to stop them, reasons for action without this principle seem to me inevitably to be one person asserting their values on others.

What is the the degree of automony of a beef steak digesting in your stomach? Is it more autonomous or less autonomous than a cow that is penned, periodically made to do something via a chip planted in its brain, but get to moo at you when she chooses?

Suppose I turn the cow's brain into cattle feed but use an artificial implant to control its body and normal biological function, that would seem to give whatever degree of conciousness the cow ever could have mustered essentially the same degree of autonomy as turning it into a steak, while also satisfying my desire to move it around by joy stick. Does that satisfy your objections?

The reason most predatory animals consume but does not play with their prey is simply because playing consumes energy but does not, in most cases, enhance the predator's survival, and therefore evolution bred out of them any inclination to perform so wasteful an activity. In cases where it does pay for the predator to play with their prey, as in the case where Killer Whales appear to exercise their brains by playing with seals and dolphins they capture but have not yet consumed, they play. So your anology seem to argue for us to do what we need to the animal if we need it.

Why does choosing to doing some of what serves our purpose - having a delicious but optional steak that ends for ever the life of a cow - not constittute "playing god" while others - moving a cow around this afternoon by a joystick - do? I would think it is a noble goal to attain such progress for humanity as for succeeding generations to seem like gods to previous generation. Wouldn't you agree?

(June 22, 2011 at 6:46 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Well, if you want to paint my thoughts red, the question is one of consumption versus enslavement. If this science is determined ethically right, then perhaps it will be OK next to create zombies? Many animals consume other animals for sustenance: Few play with their prey like this. It seems we mock the notion of gods but have no problem substituting ourselves for what we revile. Perhaps there is no self-determination in a rat, or a beetle, but I question the morality of taking away any chance it has for autonomy while leaving it alive to do the bidding of an outside entity.

So now all you're concerned with is what some ethics committee somewhere decides what is ethical?

Creating Zombies is creating life though, I thought 'life is good'?

What the hell does this have to do with self-worship?

What scenario are you envisioning where people are 'playing' with animals?

What do you mean by 'self-determination'?

I disagree that the only reason predators do not play with their food is due to energy expenditure. Sure, killer whales do so, as do some of the big cats, polar bears, etc. Granted that it is an anthropomorphic moral judgment coming from my corner, but I do not admire this in any animal, least of all man, who can consider the results of his actions.

You ask about that steak, and I say that it is dead and ideally did not suffer any extension of the removal of its life. I have switched to eating grass fed beef, free range eggs, etc, simply based on the living conditions of the animals pre-death. To remove the animal's consciousness while leaving it alive disturbs me greatly. I worry about such ethics being applied to humans, ultimately.

I think the knowledge that could be gained to understand the workings of the brain is too much to give up. As long as people aren't putting chips in monkeys and playing rock 'em sock 'em robots with them that's fine. Personally though, if I had a monkey hooked up to a joystick, I would put a bunch of obstacles in front of it and play real life super mario.

(June 22, 2011 at 7:10 pm)Epimethean Wrote: I disagree that the only reason predators do not play with their food is due to energy expenditure.

And what do you believe is happening instead? Some moral judgement?

(June 22, 2011 at 7:08 pm)theVOID Wrote: So now all you're concerned with is what some ethics committee somewhere decides what is ethical?

Creating Zombies is creating life though, I thought 'life is good'?

What the hell does this have to do with self-worship?

What scenario are you envisioning where people are 'playing' with animals?

What do you mean by 'self-determination'?

It is a difficult appeal to make, I grant you. Something about it feels very unethical to ME, regardless of what an ethics committee decides. It rubs me wrong.

Creating zombies is not creating life, nor would this process be.

Self-worship in the form of taking on the powers of total control over living beings devoid of consciousness. It may not be against human nature, and I may be in the minority here, but it feels out of sorts with nature.

As for playing with animals, how is it not playing with them to remove their control of their own bodies and direct them howsoever we wish?

Self-determination as it regards free will. I see a difference between this and raising animals for food. I doubt I'll make it far on that ground, but I do feel there is a difference.

---

(June 22, 2011 at 7:14 pm)theVOID Wrote:

(June 22, 2011 at 7:10 pm)Epimethean Wrote: I disagree that the only reason predators do not play with their food is due to energy expenditure.

And what do you believe is happening instead? Some moral judgement?

No, simply the need to eat. Perhaps it really is simply energy efficiency, but not all predators seem to find pleasure (perhaps that is the word I want) in prolonging the imminence of a meal.

(June 22, 2011 at 7:16 pm)Epimethean Wrote: feels [...] to ME

That's what it comes down to.

Quote:Creating zombies is not creating life, nor would this process be.

Semantics perhaps, the conceptual zombie seems as if it would fit the criteria for life .

Quote:Self-worship in the form of taking on the powers of total control over living beings devoid of consciousness. It may not be against human nature, and I may be in the minority here, but it feels out of sorts with nature.

False equivocation, simply taking control of some system be it living or not does not imply that one worships themselves. It seems to me that you're associating a position you dislike with gods/worship as an attack, it's not a good argument in any case.

How is it 'out of sorts with nature'? Do you mean it's uncommon? There are spiders that inject toxins into their victims that makes them a kind of 'drone' with beneficial behaviours. Spiders also imprison their victims and slowly digest them. Uncommon yes, but not 'unnatural'.

Quote:As for playing with animals, how is it not playing with them to remove their control of their own bodies and direct them howsoever we wish?

Sorry, my question was 'what scenario do you envision?' as in, for what purpose can you actually see this happen?

Quote:Self-determination as it regards free will. I see a difference between this and raising animals for food. I doubt I'll make it far on that ground, but I do feel there is a difference.

I don't see the relationship, what does raising animals for food have to do with free will?

As for free will, it doesn't exist, not in the cartesian sense.