The old ethics crumble

[ASBO]

So what if you could do a head transplant with a healthy brain onto a healthy body?

People will sell you their kids for $100,000 and you can use their bodies. Kind of neat. Unethical, well -- they say that now. But when the money flows, it's going to be another story.

What about the link between genetics and intelligence or worse, the link between evolution and morality?

Life is more complicated than Christian morality and its secular godless counterpart, liberal progressive humanism/revolutionary thought, can address.

Black metal's response was not to do what seemed linearly right or profitable, but to do what is beautiful... to shoot for the highest star and celebrate death, tragedy and horror as much as life and light.

Seems balanced to me. You take the negative in hand up front, and have no surprises and skeletons in the closet that way.

[Von List]

What happened to just, well, dying?

[Cargést]

Death is a scary place to be, so we'd rather delay the inevitable and just not get on with things.

[Time Curator 23]

Such developments usually ignite a flare of worries over ethics, but never end up as bad as many claim.

If this ends up succeeding, we shouldn't see anything more than a small, marginalized crowd who'd oppose the case of a brain transplant from one death bed ridden (but brain-healthy) child to a seriously at risk child in need of a "new brain". Likewise, of course, it's doubtful that parents would be willing to sell a grown child that's healthy.

If this thread was about ethics, I think the message was: "They have a consistent pattern that points toward the same thing, but the individual pieces change over space and time, so there's no need to make claims of outrage when a certain set of ethics changes." Remember abortion and gay marriage?

[NihilistJake]

 Unethical, well -- they say that now.

Of course they say it's unethical now. No person wants to give up their head/body to another person. The major problem they are having right now isn't ethics though, it's that the animals that received the transplant died from it. They state in the article that the nerves don't connect.

Ethics will be out of the question once they start saving lives. They said in the article that at one time, organ transplants were highly controversial. Hell, at one point in time, respect for women and colored people was unethical. Once it starts working, ethics WILL be ignored.

[nous]

So, do you propose a standard, a principle, draw a line? Or do you want to go with the flow?

[Time Curator 23]

So, do you propose a standard, a principle, draw a line? Or do you want to go with the flow?

What?

[nous]

So, do you propose a standard, a principle, draw a line? Or do you want to go with the flow?

What?

Sorry if I have confused you; my intent was to ask whether some who think that the old ethics should crumble would dare to make a judgement. But I can begin of course, and you just answer, if you like.

Does the "good human life" change with time? I would argue that it doesn't. I think that the time given to most is enough. Those more interested in pleasure have lots of wine and women to enjoy during one lifetime, but why should those be allowed live longer than is due to them? The active life, or in other words, changing the world around you - that can be done in one lifetime. The contemplative life - study, initiation, deliverance - this mostly depends on your intellect, not on the length of your life.

Is death really so bad that we need black magic to avoid it? Maybe death is just the last cure to sickness. Anyway, if some loser has fucked up his life so far, he probably won't improve during his "prolongation". And he who has not fucked up his life has nothing to fear at all.

If you have a mortally sick infant, well, bad luck. I don't want to know how many infants have died because of bad luck. It's part of life, and it reminds us of the fact that one should not hold too dear what one could lose.

[Time Curator 23]

Then we're in agreement. As are most of us here, it seems. And we're acting on these principles, I hope. Technology will never eliminate aging, illness, injury, or death. Morphine is one thing. SSRIs and vitamin supplements are (mostly) for cowards and cattle. Those who love life will realize that good times will always end, that loved ones will always pass away.

"You're a near genius who sees decadence all around you and so are depressed, you say? Sorry buddy, but life is tough for all of us. Get used to it. What's actually wrong with you is that you have a mental disorder, mhmm. A chemical imbalance in the brain, mhmm. Worry not, sir! We have the proper medicine for you. Sign your co-pay here, please."

Why be a victim?

[Conservationist]

So, do you propose a standard, a principle, draw a line? Or do you want to go with the flow?

Of course you propose a standard or principle, but then test it against reality.

The fact is that this capacity is coming, and that's why we need to think about standards now.