frank317:


these days, u seem to want to complicate simple issues

And that's the problem, i am not complicating simple issues, i am simply telling you the issues you think are simple aren't at all simple.

And that's why it becomes very hard to understand.

I am pretty sure that after this time, most of you here will surely begin to understand moral arguments more and how they work.

At least won't use another moral conclusion as a basis for a moral conclusion.

You shouldn't always hold a simplistic belied, we can always go beyond that and understand the subject even further.

I have the hard copy, and I think I bought the book from a flea market or possibly a secondhand bookshop
I love what I learned from the book, I ravenously ate the staws but of course took care, to spit out the sticks

The thing about johnydon22 and his pseudo intelligence, he likes to be thought of as having a lot of intelligence and knowledge but who really isnt intelligent or knowledgeable, is that, he is somebody that insists that God doesnt exist, God isnt real, well money too, isn't either but he still believe in it but not in God, what a bummer.

johnydon22:
Have i argued that God decides morality? Morality is derived through a basic derivative method and the beginning of this method is the assumption of value and this is the argument; the basis of morality. You are probably reading the back of your phone to come up with this non-sequitur above.

Assumption of values by who? It starts with individuals and this to me it the basis of morality.

Whatever happens collectively is only secondary. We cannot overlook the individual mindsets where the ideas originated from.

MuttleyLaff:

I have the hard copy, and I think I bought the book from a flea market or possibly a secondhand bookshop
I love what I learned from the book, I ravenously ate the staws but of course took care, to spit out the sticks

The thing about johnydon22 and his pseudo intelligence, he likes to be thought of as having a lot of intelligence and knowledge but who really isnt intelligent or knowledgeable, is that, he is somebody that insists that God doesnt exist, God isnt real, well money too, isn't either but he still believe in it but not in God, what a bummer.

That's not a factual thing to say. I have read his submissions on this issue. He's actually right that these things aren't as simple as they seem.

I am also inclined to agree with frank317's viewpoint that when looking at morality, the individualistic aspect should be well recognized, and not just focusing on the intersubjectivity aspect.

After all, every moral issue — rights or wrongs; good or evil — starts from the individual before extending further to other people with common shared interests in the society to form a belief system (out morality).

gensteejay:
That's not a factual thing to say. I have read his submissions on this issue. He's actually right that these things aren't as easy as they seem.

I am also inclined to agree with frank317's viewpoint that when looking at morality, the individualistic aspect should be well recognized, and not just focusing on the intersubjectivity aspect.

After all, every moral issue — rights or wrongs; good or evil — starts from the individual before extending further to other people with common shared interests in the society to form a belief system (out morality).

You've just confirmed what I said, frank317 is miles better than and miles ahead of johnydon22 any time of any day.

OK to the question of OP: Instead of making clones for organ harvesting, isn't it better to create an artificial body and transfer the human consciousness to it like it's being planned in the 2045 Initiative (http://2045.com/)?

Of course, proponents of the 2 technologies will have to contend with a number of ethical issues, both foreseen and unforeseen.

As regards the 2045 Initiative, it is the brainchild of Dmitry Itskov, a Russian billionaire and entrepreneur, who seeks that man should have immortal life and enhanced physical, mental, and spiritual abilities. He plans to use cutting-edge techniques to design an artificial body, which is affordable to the masses.

He, alongside his team of experts and partners, proposes that people can then transfer their consciousness into such a body with soon-to-be-designed procedures in a bid to combat diseases, improve human lives, and ultimately achieve immortality.

The Project, which fundamentally seeks to create and populate a new set of human species (successor to homo sapien), is billed to be complete in 2045.

The program seems laudable, at least superficially, but if it becomes successful, it will introduce new issues, politically, ethically, medically, and so on, all over the world, particularly in Third World countries.

MuttleyLaff:
You've just confirmed what I said, frank317 is miles better than and miles ahead of johnydon22 any time of any day.

That's quite fallacious, IMO. I don't see any facts on ground, showing your evaluation is veracious.

gensteejay:
That's quite fallacious, IMO. I don't see any facts on ground, showing your evaluation is veracious.

So you dont agree and accept that frank317 is miles better than and miles ahead of johnydon22 any time of any day, I take it then, huh?

MuttleyLaff:
So you dont agree and accept that frank317 is miles better than and miles ahead of johnydon22 any time of any day I take it then, huh?

Miles better and ahead in what sense? What are the criteria you utilised to reach such a conclusion?

frank317:


Assumption of values by who? It starts with individuals and this to me it the basis of morality.

Whatever happens collectively is only secondary. We cannot overlook the individual mindsets where the ideas originated from.

I do believe we are talking about two entirely different things then because basis is not referring to people who hold the ideas but rather the underlying foundation for an idea in the case of morality is the belief in the assumption of value.

And again, individuals conceiving moral points do not make these moral points valid, the validation of a moral position comes from collection of intertwined beliefs.

HardMirror:
Simple. Stealing is not objectively wrong but as a society we realize if it is made bad then we can collectively benefit from our individual labours without fear of losing what is ours.

It's your use of "objectively wrong" that flagged this, mirror. What is "objectively wrong"? Give an example please. And how do we collectively make something bad?

MuttleyLaff:

I have the hard copy, and I think I bought the book from a flea market or possibly a secondhand bookshop
I love what I learned from the book, I ravenously ate the staws but of course took care, to spit out the sticks

The thing about johnydon22 and his pseudo intelligence, he likes to be thought of as having a lot of intelligence and knowledge but who really isnt intelligent or knowledgeable, is that, he is somebody that insists that God doesnt exist, God isnt real, well money too, isn't either but he still believe in it but not in God, what a bummer.

I got it too but struggle reading it as I've read far better but a good book all the same from what I've read of it and if you manage not to swallow the sticks.

budaatum:

I got it too but struggle reading it as I've read far better but a good book all the same from what I've read of it and if you manage not to swallow the sticks.

I actually had that Peugeot bit johnydon22 lifted, dog-eared, as interesting among other bits too.

MuttleyLaff:
I actually had that Peugeot bit johnydon22 lifted, dog-eared, as interesting among other bits too.

The bit I threw back at him?

Johnydon22, sorry about this, but I've been considering your intersubjectivity during this conversation and been thinking, what happens when subjects refuse to intersubject their subjectivity to objective fact?

johnydon22:


I do believe we are talking about two entirely different things then because basis is not referring to people who hold the ideas but rather the underlying foundation for an idea in the case of morality is the belief in the assumption of value.

And again, individuals conceiving moral points do not make these moral points valid, the validation of a moral position comes from collection of intertwined beliefs.

It does bro... Because it determines what moral position will be validated when they all come together.

Another question. Is there a connection between the intersubjective and the Collective unconscious as coined by Carl Jung to "refer to structures of the unconscious mind which are shared among beings of the same species"? (Or it's part inverse even, 'collective consciousness'?)