Philosophy Discussion Forums

Hello my fellow philosophers!

I'm a student studying biology and looking to get into the field of immunology or virology. With my science background I am here to challenge modern ethics and morality of man; so here is some fuel for a fire:

Stem cell research:

I am amazed, but more importantly disgusted, that religion still has such a firm hold on this modern world's morality. Maybe it should be the time to teach in the school systems to the youth the words of Nietzsche that god is dead. Some say stem cell research is a sensitive topic. I ask, why? The cults of religion turn god into this manifested being that resembles man. But how could a deity of mass and matter formulate the heavens? If god can be labeled as energy, then let us rewrite the book of ethics. So, I come here with the topic of stem cell research. The fact that it is so morally wrong to "pretend to be god" that is truly holding back the scientific world to progress in a biological and medical point of view. You see, an embryo truly is nothing but cells. Cells with the potential to be you or I. But, the key here is that they have not acquired the opportunity to do so. For those who require in vitro fertilization (for those who don't know its taking the egg and sperm and placing them into a petri dish, incubate them until they begin to form dividing cells, and placed back into the uterus to grow) for those extra embryos that just get discarded away, would it not be better to use such cells for potential research into the possibility of curing the incurable? How about all those aborted fetus', they're unwanted clumps of differentiated cells, that also have potential to solve the atrocities that afflict humankind? Is it not time to put aside the old mythologies of ethics and human rights, when, if one looks at our histories humankind is truly such a sacrilegous being who cannot connect with their man-made ideas of eternity, god, and faith?

There, I hope this will be the spark to fuel the minds of all those inclined to science (and of course those in opposition!) =D

Not to sound like a jerk, but in an idealogical debate, your tact fails. In fact, it falls flat. Sorry, but you've failed to drive the conversation further.

Aside from that, there is a level of truth to what you are saying.

Contemplative_Nihilist wrote:There, I hope this will be the spark to fuel the minds of all those inclined to science (and of course those in opposition!) =D

This whole discussion turns on one issue:

Is there a God?

You assert that there is no such thing, using loaded rhetoric to slam religion and man as your tool to convey this message. But it's not enough, especially in a philosophy forum where sophisticated theists reside, whose only church is the depths of their own minds. To be honest, it irks me to see somebody try and negate the credibility of 'God' via the methods that you have employed. And it irks me more that you would use this forlorn negation as the justification for saying what is and isn't right. Something isn't automatically right just because you find flaw in something else.

To be honest, I haven't really developed a set-in-stone stance on stem-cell research. That's because I haven't devoted enough attention to it. And given what I have said above, it appears that neither have you.

I take it that C_Nihilist #1 is claiming that we should now put aside archaic and outdated myths because

1.they don't solve contemporary problems with diseases etc.

and

2. they don't explain the nature of life(e.g. a bundle of cells isn't life, or is it?)

I suggest to Contemplative_Nihilist who is embarking on a worthwhile career in science that he or she looks straight away at naturalism which is likely to be congenial to her/him.

http://www.naturalism.org/

First of all, its really nice to see someone with a scientific background contributing to the Philosophy of Science Forum.

However...

The post has so many philosophical problems with it that its difficult to even know where to start. Some basics:

1. You repeatedly conflate Religion with Ethics. They're not the same thing. An ethical position can be founded on religious beliefs, but it certainly doesn't have to be.

2. Philosophy is all about reasoned arguments, and you present none in your post. As lifegazer says, its just 'loaded rhetoric'.

3. Your post contains at least one major contradiction. You say that you support stem cell research because of what it could do to help people. And yet you also wish to dispose of ethics. With no ethics, why help anyone?

For the record, I support stem cell research, but I also think that ethical concerns are definitely relevant to research in Biology.

Why stop at embryos? Heck, why not round up the homeless or the poor and conduct experiments on them, or farm them for organs and tissue for the wealthy? Why not allow mothers to sell their newborns to medical facilities (instead of just having abortions) so that those newborns can be farmed for vital biological components necessary to research and medicine?

And the elderly are such a drain on our resources, gobbling up all that health care money. Why not just institute a law that says that if you're no longer employed, you need to march your state-owned body down to the nearest human body recycling and experiment facility?

"It's .. people. Soylent Green is made out of .. people."

Contemplative_Nihilist,
I agree with you that the living are more important than bundles of unconscious cells. However, there are so many people who feel reverence for bundles of human cells that their preferences have to be accommodated too.Foetuses are a different case from early conception material and personally I'd draw the line at aborting of any foetus that is sentient. I have little idea when sentience occurs. If sentience occurs even within the first month of pregnancy, I'd be against abortion unless the foetus were properly anaesthetised.

Some people cannot differentiate between the right to life of a foetus, the right to life of a newborn and the right to life of a child of seven. Rights to life are not natural rights but are conferred on individuals by the society in which the individuals live.It is therefore necessary to have this dialogue so that compassion for all concerned is taken into consideration.

There was a case in the UK fairly recently where a children's hospital had retained organs from dead babies without permission from parents. When the parents discovered this they were sad and angry that they had bee deprived of proper farewells with their dead babies, and the hospital had to make reparations.People's feelings about their dead have to be taken into consideration.

I do not think we need to eliminate theism to convince people to let other people perform research on human embryos and stem cells, particularly those which will be destroyed anyway. Granted, theism does seem to be the root of the black-and-white idea of the right to life to be based not on sentience, intelligence or other measure except solely on whether a thing is a human in some sense even sometimes if its an embryo or a brain-dead, heartless body being kept "alive" by machines. But there are also many theists who feel otherwise. There are many theists who oppose the slaughter of sentient, relatively intelligent non-human animals but who have no sympathy for a sperm, a brainless embryo or a brain-dead human.

Meleagar wrote:Why stop at embryos? Heck, why not round up the homeless or the poor and conduct experiments on them, or farm them for organs and tissue for the wealthy?

That is a red herring. Obviously, nobody is seriously suggesting we murder the homeless to use their organs.

People want the 'right to life' to be given according to different criteria, such as sentience, intelligence, self-sufficiency or whether the creature or potential creature has human DNA. Choosing to equate the killing of an embryo which lacks all but one of those things with killing a sentient, conscious, non-brain-dead adult person such as a homeless person as an argument against the former is a red herring and an instance of begging the question.

I don't know whether this is a science question or a question of ethics! Either way the premise in the OP is faulty since "embryonic" stem cells research has yet to produce any successful treatments and most researchers claim that positive developments using embryonic stem cells may be generations in the making, if ever. Meanwhile the less ethically challenged use of "adult" stem cells have been successful in treating more than 70 diseases and ailments, and more than 1500 clinical trials use adult stem cells. Also the use of "Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPS cells)" have shown the greatest promise and satisfy many of the appropriate ethical considerations. iPS cells are being shown capable to have the same pluripotency as embryonic stem cells. So there are alternatives being worked on which will prove to be as resourceful and "benevolent" without being ethically compromised.

Not only is it disingenuous to clam that a cell which has human DNA, which some want to harvest since it is human and therefore claimed to be capable to help humans, I mean one couldn't use pig cells to help humans, isn't human, is also intellectual malfeasance and just an attempt to start to justify killing humans as early as possible.

You see God has placed all humanity's needs within his grasp. We just have to work past the ambiguity of ethical materialism and start thinking and acting like human beings, with just a little more going for us than animals and that should start with human life at its earliest, most vulnerable, stages, as well as at its twilight, and all of life in between for that matter.

This(OP) is much more a question of utilitarian ethics than it is a statement about science, but Scott doesn't seem to mind for whatever reason.

If god is omnipotent then he decides if he is dead or discovered etc. point being: you can't prove god is dead.

Contemplative_Nihilist wrote:Cells with the potential to be you or I. But, the key here is that they have not acquired the opportunity to do so

.This is a bit like saying: it's best to bang ones head against the wall because they haven't thought of a new idea yet(circular logic).

I do think stem cell research could do great things for humanity however, so we agree on that; but the reasoning as to how you got there is a different matter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For other problems see post #5

wanabe wrote:If god is omnipotent then he decides if he is dead or discovered etc. point being: you can't prove god is dead.

I suggest you read some Richard Dawkins. You can't just make something up, deny you made it up by saying it can't be disproven thus it must be true and then base an ethical theory on it.

Scott,

It's only a red herring if you fail to understand the nature of the point I'm making, which is about ethics based on materialistic relativism.

What difference do any of the qualities you list make? If you're willing to void one as an ethical preventative, why not void another ... and another, as one deems necessary to whatever use the arbitrarily decide is of greater value than those qualities?

It's called a slippery slope, and there is none more slippery than materialist relativism.

Belinda wrote: Rights to life are not natural rights but are conferred on individuals by the society in which the individuals live.

Really?? So in Nazi Germany (circa 1940) the "society" took away the right to life of Jewish people and, according to you, were fully right in doing so because "rights to life are not natural rights but are conferred on individuals by the society in which they live."

Belinda, this is philosophical crap and you of all people should know better!!!

Do you honestly believe what you write? Have you considered whether your position is at all inconsistent? A few weeks ago you were advocating that Holocaust denial should be against the law! Now you seem to be saying the value of any individual's life is determined by the "society" they live in. Based upon what? The same "whims" that make reality television or disco the rage for a few years? What a "society" says is decided how exactly? By you as the interpreter? If a society decides to kill all of its members over 80 years of age because it is too medically costly, you would agree that society has that right because humans do not have "natural" or inalienable rights?

No wonder this world is in such turmoil. There are too many individuals that think they have answers to fundamental questions and based upon shoddy thinking believe they have the right and power to determine who lives and who shouldn't.

This kind of thinking just makes me sad for humanity.

Superiorr wrote:

wanabe wrote:If god is omnipotent then he decides if he is dead or discovered etc. point being: you can't prove god is dead.

I suggest you read some Richard Dawkins. You can't just make something up, deny you made it up by saying it can't be disproven thus it must be true and then base an ethical theory on it.

Read Vox Day's The Irrational Atheist for a more sober look at the supposed "rationality" of Dawkins. http://irrationalatheist.com/downloads.html It's a free download. There are axioms or postulates and instances of personal knowledge that are known with "certainty" or nearly so that are impossible to be "proven" by the scientific method.

Really?? So in Nazi Germany (circa 1940) the "society" took away the right to life of Jewish people and, according to you, were fully right in doing so because "rights to life are not natural rights but are conferred on individuals by the society in which they live."

(ATavern)

Not so. The whole ethos of that Nazi society was unreasonable and uncompassionate so that Jews, Poles, Roma, Homosexuals, and disabled people suffered the consequences of the madness of the few leading Nazis who instituted the regime.It's also true to say that the Germans themselves suffered from the madness of those international criminals.

Scott,

It's only a red herring if you don't understand the point. You say that the embryo only has one of your defining characteristics that you apparently consider meaningful when it comes to an ethical barrier to experimenting on or destroying human life; where do you draw the line? Two characteristics? Three? Why are you drawing a line at all when it comes to considering the needs of society?

Darwin considered many humans to be of inferior quality that should be exterminated or else they would drag evolutionary process down; just because what he considered to be a necessary ramification of his theory to be inhumane and "over the line" to bring to actual practice, others considered it completely justifiable via the new materialist ethic.

And so, the less intelligent were sterilized, and Hitler went on his racial purification program, and all manner of programs based on the premise that not all human life was equally sacred were carried out. I'm sure Darwin would have made the same case ... "Red Herring! Nobody is talking about rounding up undesirables and exterminating them in the name of the good of society!" ... but, yes, that is exactly what some were considering.

There is no slope quite as slippery as that of materialist relativism.