₦airaland Forum

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?

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?

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?

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?

HardMirror:
I am done and out

Common!!! I was hoping you could drag on some more

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.

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?

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.

Evangkatsoulis:
So what makes the clone different from the human. If it has same dna and structure as a human then it is human. Can it think?

Two options, give your answer for each scenario.

1. It can think

2. It can't think, just a dummy organ grower?

Geofavor:
The thought of having a clone of me makes my stomach rumble. I can't imagine staring at another me. Resident evil comes to mind. My clones would think they are me. They would have my emotions and everything. They wouldn't want to be harvested like a tree bearing fruits -- the same way I wouldn't want it done to me. They will be me.

The immorality is the last thing to even worry about, because this will be chaotic.

Just leave other problems that could arise, lets discuss the moral part of the problem for this thread

LordReed:
If they will not allow the bodies to have cognitive functions then it will be fine in my opinion or else you just birthed another human being.

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

budaatum:
That, precisely, is the question. Are "photocopies of the original human", human? Does it breath, poo, have a mind and can tell its creator to fuq off when it wants as I its original can, or is it my creation, as in one that I have "full inalienable right over", "to do with however it pleases me"?

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

MuttleyLaff:
Of course you oweu them moral obligation(s) gaffer. These "creations" are not originally yours and neither anyone else from the beginning to start with, you thieving the b-word and your hypocrite hypothetical question. Why not start from scratch huh? If you are that highly intelligent bad arse clever why not find and use your own original ingredients to make human beings with instead of tinkering with, snooping and poking into ready made human beings done by Somebody else huh?

Back on to the thread question. If man can restrain himself, be ethical, responsible and scrupulous, there isn't anything wrong then, with and/or him cloning humans for organ harvesting. This incidentally will just be a far fetched prophecy being fulfilled. Just because the Chinese have successfully cloned monkeys, doesnt mean we human beings, are next.

The Chinese cloned monkeys are monkeys as far as monkeys are known aren't they? But again, back to your question about whether human clones are human, well simple and objectively clear answer, is capital NO they arent and thats because of an obvious reason

K

HardMirror:
yes except we want to give it to them. And if majority are against it, then we avoid it all together. The powerful side always makes the choices for the weaker. There is no need being politically correct on this

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?

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.

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)

rottennaija:
yes, that what I had in mind

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

BeLookingIDIOT:
There have also been grievous religious wars,for example,the second most deadly conflict in history,the Taiping rebellion,was caused by christian fanatics.

Oh i agree, i am not disputing that. I am simply saying, it is an oversimplification and a grossly incorrect and unfair one at that to attribute majority of human wars or conflict to religions. or brandishing the idea that earth would become a peaceful utopia without any form of conflict or war if there is no religion.

budaatum:
How is it common sense for God to constrain me to love my neighbours then for that God not to show me how by leading by example? Would I not love my neighbours just as much as my God shows me to?

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.

HardMirror:
Good topic. I have nothing much to contribute as i dont believe in interests above morals. The clones have no defendable interests and nothing at stake except for our emotional sentiments

Therefore since they are our creations, we hardly owe them any moral obligation innit?

tartar9:
Are babies humans

Yes. So?

rottennaija:
Is it moral to allow Someone to die when you have the skills and power to keep them alive? On the other hand, we can also ask, why not simply transfer the knowledge, experience from the first to the clone so he continues living to say 200 years?

When you say transfer, you mean a transfer of consciousness?

ABCthings:
Personally I don't think cloning can be possible but even if some gametes are reared to form special breeds of humans for organ harvesting, it would still not be moral.

It is hypothetical, so whether it is possible or not is inconsequential.

So, why do you think it would be immoral?

MrRichmond:
Imagine if doctors asked if it was moral to cut open a human being and perform an operation?

I do not understand this.

For me personally, i think the most important question to this is; Are human clones humans?

So, this is a hypothetical question and it deals with a hypothetical moral dilema.

We all know what a clone is, so supposing we explore a hypothetical scenario for this.

Imagine we are able to clone humans, these clones of course would be photocopies of the original human.

So, imagine that we have a clone for each individual or even as many as any individual can afford, and when this individual needs an organ like Liver, heart, lungs, kidney, transplant, these organs are harvested from yoir clone for your use.

So, in other words, these clones are just like bean pods for human organ requirements.

Do you think such practise can be referred to as moral?

budaatum:
Funny! When last did you make a pot and have it complain? Is a pot the same as a human being?

People question God (they don't really, and just question, period) because they seek understanding. And God does answer those questions, at least going by the numerous times God was questioned in Scripture and answered. And the fact that even I can say, "what the fuq, God? and not get turned into stone is evidence one can. Besides, is it not by questioning God that one seeks God and gains understanding and all else that follows? I guess I'm not a lemming and want answers.

I do not think same moral constraints apply to a creator and the created.

And a creator have 100% right to do whatever it pleases with its creation.

That's common sense.

LordReed:
Which just happens to go so well with their discomfort in talking about sex yeah? Isn't that convenient.

Yes, that's exactly the reason for their conservativeness on sex

LordReed:
How do you mean?

I mean, from a religious perspective/theological standpoint, sex is more than just a physical activity that should be kept secret between the participants

alBHAGDADI:
If there's no Christianity preaching love for one's neighbor, then attacks on neighbors will be rampant.

That is demonstrably incorrect

alBHAGDADI:
He doesn't seem to know that it is Christianity that is preventing the world from becoming a world of war and beastly attitude.

lalasticlala

I don't think so either. Where did you get that from?

Vrengkat:
Jibberish... Religion is the number one foundation of violence... You worship a God who who supposedly wiped almost every living thing, told the isrealite to commit mass genocide cause they believe something else, bro, you can't progress with all that nonsense idea... We need the Muslim, the hindu, the Christians, and even your God knows you need the atheist if you ever want to progress

Nope i disagree. The most deadliest wars in human history weren't due to religion, WW1 and 2 that has killed so much.

Stalin and Mao's genocides spanning over 100s of millions weren't religiously inspired

Hitler's genocides was more of a racially instigated act

Hutus and Tutu's conflict in Uganda, was ethnical claiming no less than 1 million souls within 24hours.

Nigerian Biafran war that saw no less than 3million Igbos dead was ethnically and politically influenced.

Religion isn't the main cause of war on earth and isn't even the deadliest influence, people can fight for something as simple as a raggard partch of dirt.

There are many other things that make humans fight; politics, ethnicity, race, religious belief, culture, resources and many others.

Stop with the oversimplification and stop living in unicorn land - Earth won't become an amazing utopia of no conflict without religion

LordReed:
You have articulated a point of view I have been attempting to put into words. The religious objections to porn are mostly based on the uncomfortable nature of talking about sex. The view that it is a private matter not to be exposed to all eyes to see sparks a turmoil in the mind of the religious therefore the god must be correct in being against porn even though no where in their holy books does the god even make reference to porn but somehow they know what the god wants because it just happens to tally with their feelings on the matter.

I think from a religious perspective, sex goes far much further than that