I think I'm finally seeing our middle ground here. My proposition is that if a chimera were created that had human brain tissue, don't slaughter it. Plain and simple, let it live. If it has a human brain, treat it as if it is human. As I said before, we treat beings with far less than a human brain as human, we would just have to get used to a new shape. But then, if its brain is still viable after its natural death, then use it for research/implants/whathaveyou. But let it die in its own time.
"I often find there is a lack of consistency."
I find that too in a lot of activist movements. I try to maintain consistancy while minimizing hypocracy. Unfortunatly, I do not know of a local butcher where I can know the person who at least knows the person who slaughtered the animal. I'm forced, due to my location, to buy meat at the grocery store. However, the kind of animal rights I find it particularly necessary to fight for are those who are victims of canned hunting (essentially "hunting" caged animals for sport) or the Canadian Seal Hunt in which 300,000 baby seals (12 days - 12 weeks old) are clubbed for their skins alone, and the carcasses left to rot on the ice. I feel that those are inexcusable violations (according to my own ethical standards) because there is definitely an element of disrespect involved: the animals aren't even eaten.
Like I said though, I try to be consistant. I don't think eating animals is wrong, I just think they should be treated with respect.
I also agree with your statement of all ethical premises beginning with subjectivity. I'm not really going to say any more about it, I just agree.
I think we lost each other's arguments at some point. My original comment was arguing that the creation of chimera is fine. My second comment argued that humans are not inherently better than any other species. At no point did I advocate the slaughter of these beings for the purpose of harvesting their organs. I realize now that the parent article (which I had not read, I was linked to the comment I responded to by a friend) did advocate what I consider to be immoral actions towards living creatures. However, if you take the original response in isolation, then my statements all stand.
I am personally one of those animal rights activists that you mentioned. Granted, I still eat meat, but I try to be as respectful as I can. Basically, I say go ahead (technologically speaking) and create these chimeara. But treat them with the respect that any living being deserves. I think if you go back and look at what I wrote in light of my ignorance of the original post, you'll see that I'm advocating more widespread application of moralistic views and ethical practices. This has been a fun back-and-forth though.
"blacks have suffered tremendously during hundreds of years because of the bias (and accordingly treatement) whites had about them. None of it was ethical right or justified."
You are using today's morals and standards and retroactively applying them. Keep in mind that 200 years ago, in the Western world, Africans were thought to be animals. If you had black skin, you were not human. That is how they saw the world and they acted accordingly. TO say that is is morally unjustified is assuming that our morals today are correct and theirs were wrong, but as I said before, public opinion changes as do social standards. Today we would not accept someone going to Africa, kidnapping a 10 year old boy, and bringing him back as slave labor. That is because now we believe that Africans are not animals, but human beings. It took some bloody revolutions to get that sorted out.
If you're concerned about preventing "unethical" treatment of chimera, consider perhaps the way we treat animals in general. We get very high and mighty when speaking about the differences between humans and animals, but don't pause to think about what we're saying. We try to define "human" in all sorts of ways, but we're really always just circling the issue. We talk about intelligence, but I doubt anyone would deny that Terry Schiavo was a human being just days before she died. However, my girlfriend's parakeets are more intelligent than she was right before she died. Or, if you'd argue that Terry really wasn't human at that point, look at severely retarded people. They may have a vocabulary of several dozen words and are capable of basic emotions. We call them human. But apes can have vocabularies of a few hundred words and show complex emotions and basic social structures. Yet they are apes, monkeys, animals.
Or perhaps it is our social interactions that make us human. But we form social connections with non-human beings too. We talk to our dogs and cats. They help us when we're upset. And, in fact, more likely than not you wouldn't think to harvest organs from those creatures even though they have nothing that resembles human characteristics.
If it is strictly biology that makes one human, then the ethical argument has no standing whatsoever. "I will respect this other creature because it has a head like mine, two eyes, a nose, a mouth, and opposable thumbs." That (among other traits) is what it is to be biologically classified as homo sapiens, not human. Our biology is not inherently better, because birds can fly, octopi have eight legs, and horses are bigger, stronger, and faster than us. The only thing you can claim truly sets us apart is our brain, which I mentioned before doesn't really have to be all that powerful in order for us to classify the organism as human. If you can think of other classifications that aren't heinously superficial, I'm open to hearing about them.
So I throw your question of ethics back at you. Where do we draw the line? If sheep are able to show sentience at all by doing more than just reacting to their environment (although there is an entire branch of psychology that says that's exactly what humans do), does it become morally improper to slaughter them when it was fine before? Why is it acceptable to kill them now even if they don't have thought that we are able to discern? Will Americans 200 years from now look back at us and describe our treatment of animals and plants as neither "ethical, right or justified"?
"blacks have suffered tremendously during hundreds of years because of the bias (and accordingly treatement) whites had about them. None of it was ethical right or justified."
You are using today's morals and standards and retroactively applying them. Keep in mind that 200 years ago, in the Western world, Africans were thought to be animals. If you had black skin, you were not human. That is how they saw the world and they acted accordingly. TO say that is is morally unjustified is assuming that our morals today are correct and theirs were wrong, but as I said before, public opinion changes as do social standards. Today we would not accept someone going to Africa, kidnapping a 10 year old boy, and bringing him back as slave labor. That is because now we believe that Africans are not animals, but human beings. It took some bloody revolutions to get that sorted out.
If you're concerned about preventing "unethical" treatment of chimera, consider perhaps the way we treat animals in general. We get very high and mighty when speaking about the differences between humans and animals, but don't pause to think about what we're saying. We try to define "human" in all sorts of ways, but we're really always just circling the issue. We talk about intelligence, but I doubt anyone would deny that Terry Schiavo was a human being just days before she died. However, my girlfriend's parakeets are more intelligent than she was right before she died. Or, if you'd argue that Terry really wasn't human at that point, look at severely retarded people. They may have a vocabulary of several dozen words and are capable of basic emotions. We call them human. But apes can have vocabularies of a few hundred words and show complex emotions and basic social structures. Yet they are apes, monkeys, animals.
Or perhaps it is our social interactions that make us human. But we form social connections with non-human beings too. We talk to our dogs and cats. They help us when we're upset. And, in fact, more likely than not you wouldn't think to harvest organs from those creatures even though they have nothing that resembles human characteristics.
If it is strictly biology that makes one human, then the ethical argument has no standing whatsoever. "I will respect this other creature because it has a head like mine, two eyes, a nose, a mouth, and opposable thumbs." That (among other traits) is what it is to be biologically classified as homo sapiens, not human. Our biology is not inherently better, because birds can fly, octopi have eight legs, and horses are bigger, stronger, and faster than us. The only thing you can claim truly sets us apart is our brain, which I mentioned before doesn't really have to be all that powerful in order for us to classify the organism as human. If you can think of other classifications that aren't heinously superficial, I'm open to hearing about them.
So I throw your question of ethics back at you. Where do we draw the line? If sheep are able to show sentience at all by doing more than just reacting to their environment (although there is an entire branch of psychology that says that's exactly what humans do), does it become morally improper to slaughter them when it was fine before? Why is it acceptable to kill them now even if they don't have thought that we are able to discern? Will Americans 200 years from now look back at us and describe our treatment of animals and plants as neither "ethical, right or justified"?
You've raised several issues that should be addressed. First I want to agree with what you've said, your thinking is very much in line with my own. Science has been used to create an uncountable number of terrors that we have unleashed upon this world: the nuclear bomb, anthrax, computer viruses that can bring entire corporations to a standstill, and let's not forget Fear Factor.
Science has also brought about a great deal of wonderful advances as well. Americans today throw away more food than ever before in the history of the world. We can get places faster and pollute our atmosphere and water with constantly increasing efficiency. And though we have the medicine and technology to allow people to live decades longer than they would have just a century ago, we see thousands of deaths every year from the excess consumption of Chicken McNuggets.
Don't get me wrong, I think technology is a good thing. I just think that people need ot deal with it responsibly. Engineering a human liver in a sheep for instance, is not inherently wrong. The ethical argument against it is one of the legitimacy of "playing god." If you look at the most ubiquitious traits of "god" or any other divine figure, the defining characteristic is usually the ability to create and destroy up to a cosmic scale. Biblically speaking, man was created in the image of God. That does not just mean that we have bodies that look like his/hers/its. We, like God, have the ability to create and destroy.
So the ethical question is "is it right to create a sheep with human organs?" I personally have no problem with this, and have trouble finding a theological basis for saying that God (or whathaveyou) would dislike this new "shuman" (or maybe just "heep) any less than any other creation on this planet. Just remember, we've been selectively breeding dogs for centuries for hunting, companionship, or even entertainment. Manipulating DNA is just the next step in selective breeding.
One (or maybe more, I forget) of your responders brought up the issue of what happens on a social level when sheep become more human than sheep. What happens is if we deem them to be close enough to human, we will give them "human rights." We would not kill a human being to harvest their organs (in theory), so we would extend the same courtesy to the sheep. If they become sentient, who knows, maybe they'll get to vote. That's what happened when we finally realized that black people and women were sentient. Social definitions are constantly in flux and are extremely elastic. I see no reason why they would not be able to shift to accommodiate sentient species other than humans.
Finally is the "gross-out" factor you speak of. To those who say that it is wrong to create sheep with human livers because it is gross and unnatural, I say "keep away from them, then." We hear the same sentiments towards lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered individuals. We're not saying that because they offend people they should not exist (at least, those of us with common sense and human decency don't). We say that if you're uncomfortable with people who live with that lifestyle, just don't bother them and they won't bother you. There was the same sort of social uproar 50 years ago when people tried to marry inter-racially or inter-faith. We are facing the definition of social acceptability and progress. I could go on about this, but I imagine most people haven't even bothered to read this far. To sum up, I agree with your point of view, I just felt it needed some exploration.
Slashdot Mirror
"Sounds like a deadly catch-22 to me."
I think I'm finally seeing our middle ground here. My proposition is that if a chimera were created that had human brain tissue, don't slaughter it. Plain and simple, let it live. If it has a human brain, treat it as if it is human. As I said before, we treat beings with far less than a human brain as human, we would just have to get used to a new shape. But then, if its brain is still viable after its natural death, then use it for research/implants/whathaveyou. But let it die in its own time.
"I often find there is a lack of consistency."
I find that too in a lot of activist movements. I try to maintain consistancy while minimizing hypocracy. Unfortunatly, I do not know of a local butcher where I can know the person who at least knows the person who slaughtered the animal. I'm forced, due to my location, to buy meat at the grocery store. However, the kind of animal rights I find it particularly necessary to fight for are those who are victims of canned hunting (essentially "hunting" caged animals for sport) or the Canadian Seal Hunt in which 300,000 baby seals (12 days - 12 weeks old) are clubbed for their skins alone, and the carcasses left to rot on the ice. I feel that those are inexcusable violations (according to my own ethical standards) because there is definitely an element of disrespect involved: the animals aren't even eaten.
Like I said though, I try to be consistant. I don't think eating animals is wrong, I just think they should be treated with respect.
I also agree with your statement of all ethical premises beginning with subjectivity. I'm not really going to say any more about it, I just agree.
I think we lost each other's arguments at some point. My original comment was arguing that the creation of chimera is fine. My second comment argued that humans are not inherently better than any other species. At no point did I advocate the slaughter of these beings for the purpose of harvesting their organs. I realize now that the parent article (which I had not read, I was linked to the comment I responded to by a friend) did advocate what I consider to be immoral actions towards living creatures. However, if you take the original response in isolation, then my statements all stand.
I am personally one of those animal rights activists that you mentioned. Granted, I still eat meat, but I try to be as respectful as I can. Basically, I say go ahead (technologically speaking) and create these chimeara. But treat them with the respect that any living being deserves. I think if you go back and look at what I wrote in light of my ignorance of the original post, you'll see that I'm advocating more widespread application of moralistic views and ethical practices. This has been a fun back-and-forth though.
"blacks have suffered tremendously during hundreds of years because of the bias (and accordingly treatement) whites had about them. None of it was ethical right or justified."
You are using today's morals and standards and retroactively applying them. Keep in mind that 200 years ago, in the Western world, Africans were thought to be animals. If you had black skin, you were not human. That is how they saw the world and they acted accordingly. TO say that is is morally unjustified is assuming that our morals today are correct and theirs were wrong, but as I said before, public opinion changes as do social standards. Today we would not accept someone going to Africa, kidnapping a 10 year old boy, and bringing him back as slave labor. That is because now we believe that Africans are not animals, but human beings. It took some bloody revolutions to get that sorted out.
If you're concerned about preventing "unethical" treatment of chimera, consider perhaps the way we treat animals in general. We get very high and mighty when speaking about the differences between humans and animals, but don't pause to think about what we're saying. We try to define "human" in all sorts of ways, but we're really always just circling the issue. We talk about intelligence, but I doubt anyone would deny that Terry Schiavo was a human being just days before she died. However, my girlfriend's parakeets are more intelligent than she was right before she died. Or, if you'd argue that Terry really wasn't human at that point, look at severely retarded people. They may have a vocabulary of several dozen words and are capable of basic emotions. We call them human. But apes can have vocabularies of a few hundred words and show complex emotions and basic social structures. Yet they are apes, monkeys, animals.
Or perhaps it is our social interactions that make us human. But we form social connections with non-human beings too. We talk to our dogs and cats. They help us when we're upset. And, in fact, more likely than not you wouldn't think to harvest organs from those creatures even though they have nothing that resembles human characteristics.
If it is strictly biology that makes one human, then the ethical argument has no standing whatsoever. "I will respect this other creature because it has a head like mine, two eyes, a nose, a mouth, and opposable thumbs." That (among other traits) is what it is to be biologically classified as homo sapiens, not human. Our biology is not inherently better, because birds can fly, octopi have eight legs, and horses are bigger, stronger, and faster than us. The only thing you can claim truly sets us apart is our brain, which I mentioned before doesn't really have to be all that powerful in order for us to classify the organism as human. If you can think of other classifications that aren't heinously superficial, I'm open to hearing about them.
So I throw your question of ethics back at you. Where do we draw the line? If sheep are able to show sentience at all by doing more than just reacting to their environment (although there is an entire branch of psychology that says that's exactly what humans do), does it become morally improper to slaughter them when it was fine before? Why is it acceptable to kill them now even if they don't have thought that we are able to discern? Will Americans 200 years from now look back at us and describe our treatment of animals and plants as neither "ethical, right or justified"?
"blacks have suffered tremendously during hundreds of years because of the bias (and accordingly treatement) whites had about them. None of it was ethical right or justified." You are using today's morals and standards and retroactively applying them. Keep in mind that 200 years ago, in the Western world, Africans were thought to be animals. If you had black skin, you were not human. That is how they saw the world and they acted accordingly. TO say that is is morally unjustified is assuming that our morals today are correct and theirs were wrong, but as I said before, public opinion changes as do social standards. Today we would not accept someone going to Africa, kidnapping a 10 year old boy, and bringing him back as slave labor. That is because now we believe that Africans are not animals, but human beings. It took some bloody revolutions to get that sorted out. If you're concerned about preventing "unethical" treatment of chimera, consider perhaps the way we treat animals in general. We get very high and mighty when speaking about the differences between humans and animals, but don't pause to think about what we're saying. We try to define "human" in all sorts of ways, but we're really always just circling the issue. We talk about intelligence, but I doubt anyone would deny that Terry Schiavo was a human being just days before she died. However, my girlfriend's parakeets are more intelligent than she was right before she died. Or, if you'd argue that Terry really wasn't human at that point, look at severely retarded people. They may have a vocabulary of several dozen words and are capable of basic emotions. We call them human. But apes can have vocabularies of a few hundred words and show complex emotions and basic social structures. Yet they are apes, monkeys, animals. Or perhaps it is our social interactions that make us human. But we form social connections with non-human beings too. We talk to our dogs and cats. They help us when we're upset. And, in fact, more likely than not you wouldn't think to harvest organs from those creatures even though they have nothing that resembles human characteristics. If it is strictly biology that makes one human, then the ethical argument has no standing whatsoever. "I will respect this other creature because it has a head like mine, two eyes, a nose, a mouth, and opposable thumbs." That (among other traits) is what it is to be biologically classified as homo sapiens, not human. Our biology is not inherently better, because birds can fly, octopi have eight legs, and horses are bigger, stronger, and faster than us. The only thing you can claim truly sets us apart is our brain, which I mentioned before doesn't really have to be all that powerful in order for us to classify the organism as human. If you can think of other classifications that aren't heinously superficial, I'm open to hearing about them. So I throw your question of ethics back at you. Where do we draw the line? If sheep are able to show sentience at all by doing more than just reacting to their environment (although there is an entire branch of psychology that says that's exactly what humans do), does it become morally improper to slaughter them when it was fine before? Why is it acceptable to kill them now even if they don't have thought that we are able to discern? Will Americans 200 years from now look back at us and describe our treatment of animals and plants as neither "ethical, right or justified"?
You've raised several issues that should be addressed. First I want to agree with what you've said, your thinking is very much in line with my own. Science has been used to create an uncountable number of terrors that we have unleashed upon this world: the nuclear bomb, anthrax, computer viruses that can bring entire corporations to a standstill, and let's not forget Fear Factor.
Science has also brought about a great deal of wonderful advances as well. Americans today throw away more food than ever before in the history of the world. We can get places faster and pollute our atmosphere and water with constantly increasing efficiency. And though we have the medicine and technology to allow people to live decades longer than they would have just a century ago, we see thousands of deaths every year from the excess consumption of Chicken McNuggets.
Don't get me wrong, I think technology is a good thing. I just think that people need ot deal with it responsibly. Engineering a human liver in a sheep for instance, is not inherently wrong. The ethical argument against it is one of the legitimacy of "playing god." If you look at the most ubiquitious traits of "god" or any other divine figure, the defining characteristic is usually the ability to create and destroy up to a cosmic scale. Biblically speaking, man was created in the image of God. That does not just mean that we have bodies that look like his/hers/its. We, like God, have the ability to create and destroy.
So the ethical question is "is it right to create a sheep with human organs?" I personally have no problem with this, and have trouble finding a theological basis for saying that God (or whathaveyou) would dislike this new "shuman" (or maybe just "heep) any less than any other creation on this planet. Just remember, we've been selectively breeding dogs for centuries for hunting, companionship, or even entertainment. Manipulating DNA is just the next step in selective breeding.
One (or maybe more, I forget) of your responders brought up the issue of what happens on a social level when sheep become more human than sheep. What happens is if we deem them to be close enough to human, we will give them "human rights." We would not kill a human being to harvest their organs (in theory), so we would extend the same courtesy to the sheep. If they become sentient, who knows, maybe they'll get to vote. That's what happened when we finally realized that black people and women were sentient. Social definitions are constantly in flux and are extremely elastic. I see no reason why they would not be able to shift to accommodiate sentient species other than humans.
Finally is the "gross-out" factor you speak of. To those who say that it is wrong to create sheep with human livers because it is gross and unnatural, I say "keep away from them, then." We hear the same sentiments towards lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered individuals. We're not saying that because they offend people they should not exist (at least, those of us with common sense and human decency don't). We say that if you're uncomfortable with people who live with that lifestyle, just don't bother them and they won't bother you. There was the same sort of social uproar 50 years ago when people tried to marry inter-racially or inter-faith. We are facing the definition of social acceptability and progress. I could go on about this, but I imagine most people haven't even bothered to read this far. To sum up, I agree with your point of view, I just felt it needed some exploration.