johnydon22:
Don't you think the conceptualization of law and morality as in the world today panders on the weak and less so on the powerful?

sure. As i said, freedom and rights are not absolutes, they are created and given by those who can. It is a delicate balance. We talk about equility. Slavery was only abolished because some of the powerful men like abraham Lincoln took the side of equility. There was nothing any black man could have done about it. Africa was too backward to negotiate the freedom of it's people. Power is everything. Animals remain subject to our mercies. They only have rights we give to them. And humans are at the mercy of forces greater than us. If today there is a solar flare of proportions able to wipe us out, there is nothing we can do about it.
The masses have more power than the elites but they fail to cooporate and seize it because the establishment has succeeded in controlling resources the masses need hence they control the masses, hence they have the power.

Animals can take over the world but they lack the intelligence. A chimp is 3 times stronger than a man of equal weight. But they cant organize themselves

johnydon22:
Don't you think the conceptualization of law and morality as in the world today panders on the weak and less so on the powerful?

sure. As i said, freedom and rights are not absolutes, they are created and given by those who can. It is a delicate balance. We talk about equility. Slavery was only abolished because some of the powerful men like abraham Lincoln took the side of equility. There was nothing any black man could have done about it. Africa was too backward to negotiate the freedom of it's people. Power is everything. Animals remain subject to our mercies. They only have rights we give to them. And humans are at the mercy of forces greater than us. If today there is a solar flare of proportions able to wipe us out, there is nothing we can do about it.
The masses have more power than the elites but they fail to cooporate and seize it because the establishment has succeeded in controlling resources the masses need hence they control the masses, hence they have the power.

Animals can take over the world but they lack the intelligence. A chimp is 3 times stronger than a man of equal weight. But they cant organize themselves.

We can choose to create clones for any purpose we choose as long as they do not have a say and cannot seize power from us. That is reality.

Evangkatsoulis:


Our creations in what sense? Are synthesized in a lab or are they made from sperms cells and ova?
Aren't our parents in this sense our creators and thus owe us no moral obligations?

Synthesized in a lab.

HardMirror:
sure. As i said, freedom and rights are not absolutes, they are created and given by those who can. It is a delicate balance. We talk about equility. Slavery was only abolished because some of the powerful men like abraham Lincoln took the side of equility. There was nothing any black man could have done about it. Africa was too backward to negotiate the freedom of it's people. Power is everything. Animals remain subject to our mercies. They only have rights we give to them. And humans are at the mercy of forces greater than us. If today there is a solar flare of proportions able to wipe us out, there is nothing we can do about it.
The masses have more power than the elites but they fail to cooporate and seize it because the establishment has succeeded in controlling resources the masses need hence they control the masses, hence they have the power.

Animals can take over the world but they lack the intelligence. A chimp is 3 times stronger than a man of equal weight. But they cant organize themselves.

We can choose to create clones for any purpose we choose as long as they do not have a say and cannot seize power from us. That is reality.

A close example would be; Assuming Gods made us, they are not bound by any similar moral constraints as we are. They can do whatever they want with us unless they decide not to? Innit?

johnydon22:
A close example would be; Assuming Gods made us, they are not bound by any similar moral constraints as we are. They can do whatever they want with us unless they decide not to? Innit?

exactly. And same thing is the weakness of religion, the fact that religion speaks for gods and yet cannot exhibit the supreme authority we shld expect from access to such higher powers but has to rely on tricks and persuasive methods

johnydon22:


So, if they don't have cognitive functions, they aren't humans in your opinion?

More like they are not individuals and are more like meat preserved for future consumption.

LordReed:


More like they are not individuals and are more like meat preserved for future consumption.

Would you say same for a naturally born human with no cognitive abilities?

I really want to understand the foundations of our moral positions on this matter.

tartar9:

Will it be okay to start producing babies just for the sake of organ harvesting or similar reason?
Babies,somewhat,are also our creation.
Be they clones or whatever,they still are humans,with the capabilities of thinking,feeling or whatever characterizes a human.How they were created or came about doesn't matter.

yes we can produce babes and even eat them if we want to. The only reason why we dont is because we chose not to. We have as a society placed value on babies as our hope our future, our extensions. If we allow people to use babies as they please, then we know that it cld get to the turn of our own babies that are so precious to us. Hence why the law will deal with anyone who eats a baby or uses them for organ donations or whatever.
It is all about the interests of the powerful. It is more profitable for us to protect our babies

johnydon22:


Would you say same for a naturally born human with no cognitive abilities?

I really want to understand the foundations of our moral positions on this matter.

Yes, I would say the same in that case.

LordReed:


Yes, I would say the same in that case.

So, the problem isn't the state of being human but having cognitive capabilities? This is what instills moral value to something in your opinion?

johnydon22:


If it does breathe, poo or have a mind. Does this in anyway make it less your creation?

Is my creation human is the point here, and not, whether it's my creation.

johnydon22:
Ok, fair enough.

What if they have no thinking capabilities, just dummy copy of us.

(E.g; A clone of you will look exact my like you, no difference, only wouldn't possess your mind)

So, it would only look like one. Would it have a mind of its own or not? Can it make choices or not? Is it human or not? In fact, is it a living thing or not!?

johnydon22:


Is this based on the assumption that the clone was conscious or not conscious prior?

clones are designed to be unconscious. How else will organ harvesting work or allowed?

budaatum:

Is my creation human is the point here, and not, whether it's my creation.

That is a question we can explore together then; it is a definition problem.

What is human?

Does your creation fit this definition?

If it does and is established to be in fact human, what implication does this have on its moral value, why and how does this relate to you?

budaatum:

So, it would only look like one. Would it have a mind of its own or not? Can it make choices or not? Is it human or not? In fact, is it a living thing or not!?

A clone obviously is alive, whether it is human or not remains to be seen.

Lets split the scenario into two

1. It can make choices

2. It can't.

How does this affect your judgement on its moral value?

rottennaija:
clones are designed to be unconscious. How else will organ harvesting work or allowed?

Isn't that the moral dilemma? Since they are essentially an artificial human creation, say a photocopy, it logically follows that such a copy won't conclusively be regarded as same as the original and the default state of a creator/owner to have asbolute right over its creations in the absense of a greater authority over it.

So, it is assumed that conscious or not, we have absolute control over these clones. So, would it be moral to harvest the organs?

If No, why not?

If yes, why?

johnydon22:
Isn't that the moral dilemma? Since they are essentially an artificial human creation, say a photocopy, it logically follows that such a copy won't conclusively be regarded as same as the original and the default state of a creator/owner to have asbolute right over its creations in the absense of a greater authority over it.

So, it is assumed that conscious or not, we have absolute control over these clones. So, would it be moral to harvest the organs?

If No, why not?

If yes, why?

Left for me, I say, clone them and transfer consciousness when the original is old and can no longer function

rottennaija:


Left for me, I say, clone them and transfer consciousness when the original is old and can no longer function

And if they are also conscious? Isn't that same as death?

johnydon22:


A clone obviously is alive, whether it is human or not remains to be seen.

Lets split the scenario into two

1. It can make choices

2. It can.

How does this affect your judgement on its moral value?

If my clone can make choices, it may choose to tell me to fuq off when I need the heart I created in it! What do I do then? Say, "I created you and can therefore do to you as I wish"? I guess if the law allows that (and I'm talking we go court so I can tell my clone it's my pot and I can smash it if I wanted despite all it's resistance), then hey, I got me a heart and would take it if only because I don't want to die yet. But what exactly do I do when I need a kidney two years later? Take it out of my heartless very likely dead rotten clone? And that's just the practical problem. Currently, the law (depending on where one is of course), does not allow one to take out the heart of a dog so I can't see how they'd allow me to take out a vital organ from my living clone. But if I go to India or some other poor nation, I can at least buy someone's kidney I suppose.

So, moral or not? The question really should be 'legal or not' because if I create and own a clone and can legally do to it as I wish, then I'm certain that if I need a heart I'd harvest me a heart. However, I might see my clone as my child and nurture it as such. If I convince myself I created my child and can do to it as I wish, would I rip out my child's heart and put it in me if I were legally allowed to? I wouldn't, but let me say I hope I wouldn't, especially if I could go to India to buy someone else's child and rip their heart out and put it in me instead.

But. Education! That's the bee in this ointment. If I have been educated that, say, a god thing created all human beings, or all human have an equal right to life, and I should love my neighbours, and must not kill humans and covet them and such like, and if I have taken this education on board, then the only issue with my harvesting my clone would be whether it thinks like me and poos like me, and if it does, then I just might see it as human like me, then it does become a case of killing another human being to prolong my life and whether I think its moral or not to do so.

The law, thankfully, does not permit me to kill another human being for my own selfish needs regardless of my moral stance or need, is my opinion.

johnydon22:
And if they are also conscious? Isn't that same as death?

I don't know if you understand what I mean. You have a clone in vegetative state and when the real is old and probably no longer functional, you transfer consciousness to the clone and activate it.

The clone now becomes the main, with full conscientious, experience and knowledge of the old

budaatum:

If my clone can make choices, it may choose to tell me to fuq off when I need the heart I created in it! What do I do then? Say, "I created you and can therefore do to you as I wish"?

Actually, it has no more say than a chicken telling you to fuq off. You own the power, think an absolute authority more suited than ones wielded by slave masters. It can think, but what exactly can it do?

Assume there is a God, it comes to you and go like " Dude, i want to kill you now" and you are like "fuq off, i am my own boss"

Isn't that laughable?

I guess if the law allows that (and I'm talking we go court so I can tell my clone it's my pot and I can smash it if I wanted despite all it's resistance), then hey, I got me a heart and would take it if only because I don't want to die yet. But what exactly do I do when I need a kidney two years later? Take it out of my heartless very likely dead rotten clone? And that's just the practical problem. Currently, the law (depending on where one is of course), does not allow one to take out the heart of a dog so I can't see how they'd allow me to take out a vital organ from my living clone. But if I go to India or some other poor nation, I can at least buy someone's kidney I suppose.

So, moral or not? The question really should be 'legal or not' because if I create and own a clone and can legally do to it as I wish, then I'm certain that if I need a heart I'd harvest me a heart. However, I might see my clone as my child and nurture it as such. If I convince myself I created my child and can do to it as I wish, would I rip out my child's heart and put it in me if I were legally allowed to? I wouldn't, but let me say I hope I wouldn't, especially if I could go to India to buy someone else's child and rip their heart out and put it in me instead.

But. Education! That's the bee in this ointment. If I have been educated that, say, a god thing created all human beings, or all human have an equal right to life, and I should love my neighbours, and must not kill humans and covet them and such like, and if I have taken this education on board, then the only issue with my harvesting my clone would be whether it thinks like me and poos like me, and if it does, then I just might see it as human like me, then it does become a case of killing another human being to prolong my life and whether I think its moral or not to do so.

The law, thankfully, does not permit me to kill another human being for my own selfish needs regardless of my moral stance or need, is my opinion.

We are not talking about legality dude, the premise remains on its morality

rottennaija:
I don't know if you understand what I mean. You have a clone in vegetative state and when the real is old and probably no longer functional, you transfer consciousness to the clone and activate it.

The clone now becomes the main, with full conscientious, experience and knowledge of the old

Is that similar to just also harvesting its organs and transferring it to the original body?

johnydon22:
Is that similar to just also harvesting its organs and transferring it to the original body?

It is simply to having the same galaxy s10 and when one is tired, you simply transfer all the files, accounts, bookmarks, etc to the other.

johnydon22:
So, the problem isn't the state of being human but having cognitive capabilities? This is what instills moral value to something in your opinion?

What do you mean by "instills moral value"?

johnydon22:
We are not talking about legality dude, the premise remains on its morality

Then your question simply becomes, would I rip out my child's heart and put it in myself? And my response is, hopefully not. But I would go to India though, if not for the education I mentioned in my previous.

johnydon22:
You own the power, think an absolute authority more suited than ones wielded by slave masters. It can think, but what exactly can it do?

Slave master? Today? You do know William Wilberforce will be lobbying in Parliament for the abolishment of my clone master rights and whole countries will be in civil war trying to abolish my clone master rights patrolling in gunboats trying to free my clone, right Damn, there'd likely be people outside my house chanting "free clone", and that's if they don't blow me up first!

johnydon22:
Assume there is a God, it comes to you and go like " Dude, i want to kill you now" and you are like "fuq off, i am my own boss"

Isn't that laughable?q

Why is it laughable? It's not as if God comes to me everyday so I can easily identify God when it does come to me! It could be Balaams ass talking, or a bush burning for all I know, and I'm just tripping!

"Fuq off" is precisely what I'd say first after laughing my head off until I've checked its identity papers and figured it really is God then I'd be on my knees begging God "Please", and asking God, "why, now" with tears in my eyes; blood even, if it would make a difference, but I'd still try!

johnydon22:
Actually, it has no more say than a chicken telling you to fuq off.

Then it's a chicken and not a clone of me because if it was a clone of me it would tell me to fuq off, but since it isn't me and is only a chicken then ripping its heart out and putting it inside me would be equally as moral (or immoral, if you're a veggy) to ripping the heart out of a chicken and eating it and last time I checked, chicken is yummy, so there.

LordReed:


What do you mean by "instills moral value"?

Give moral value

It's difficult to say. Clones are still humans and they will the desire to live and form their "destinies." Nevertheless, creating clones to save lives won't be immoral except we attach moral sentiments after all, they were created to have their organs harvested.

Martinez39:
It's difficult to say. Clones are still humans and they will the desire to live and form their "destinies." Nevertheless, creating clones to save lives won't be immoral except we attach moral sentiments after all, they were created to have their organs harvested.

So, you are saying; even though they are humans of some sort, we still have absolute moral permissibility to do with them whatever we please since they are our creations and we have specific purposes for them?

johnydon22:


So, you are saying; even though they are humans of some sort, we still have absolute moral permissibility to do with them whatever we please since they are our creations and we have specific purposes for them?

Well, they were created to have their organs harvested and save our dying ones. We can ignore our dying ones and the purpose of creating these clones just cater for the clones. We just can't. On a second thought, I were to put myself in the shoes of these clones, I would definitely want to live :'-( but we just have to carry on with why they were created.

johnydon22:


Would you say same for a naturally born human with no cognitive abilities?

I really want to understand the foundations of our moral positions on this matter.

I agree with Lord reed

@ the bolded no human being can be born or survive without a cognitive ability

johnydon22:


A clone obviously is alive, whether it is human or not remains to be seen.

Lets split the scenario into two

1. It can make choices

2. It can't.

How does this affect your judgement on its moral value?

Does this clone have a brain ?
If it does what functioning level is the brain,is it more than that of a fowl

Again, the argument here is; if you were created by something or someone, it appeals to logic that this something or someone has full inalienable right over you, to do with you however it pleases. Similarly like we as humans have over every creations we have made.

the same moral constraints to do not apply to both you and the creator, No, it obviously is above any petty morals that may govern you by its own prescriptions or yours.

Johnny u might want to explain the above