If it Were Possible Would it be Ethical? why or why not- a Hypothetical Debate

[Stanyon]

Of course this is just science fiction/fantasy so you have to bear with me:
Facts:
It is possible to create test tube babies

It is possible to manipulate the thought processes and emotions of a developing fetus through chemicals, sounds, and other input.

There are labs designed to grow this child from birth to adulthood with no contact with the outside world other than what they are taught to believe/feel about it in a controlled environment.

Would it be ethical?
To engineer soldiers and grow bodies for spare parts

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Of course this is just science fiction/fantasy so you have to bear with me:
Facts:
It is possible to create test tube babies

It is possible to manipulate the thought processes and emotions of a developing fetus through chemicals, sounds, and other input.

There are labs designed to grow this child from birth to adulthood with no contact with the outside world other than what they are taught to believe/feel about it in a controlled environment.

Would it be ethical?
To engineer soldiers and grow bodies for spare parts

Hell to the no.

 

[Stanyon]

Why not? almost all societies do it post birth to some degree anyway without test tubes

 

[BSM1]

Ethics-Shmethics I would raise a heart donor in a ...erm...heartbeat.

 

[Stevicus]

Of course this is just science fiction/fantasy so you have to bear with me:
Facts:
It is possible to create test tube babies

It is possible to manipulate the thought processes and emotions of a developing fetus through chemicals, sounds, and other input.

There are labs designed to grow this child from birth to adulthood with no contact with the outside world other than what they are taught to believe/feel about it in a controlled environment.

Would it be ethical?
To engineer soldiers and grow bodies for spare parts

If we're talking about "creating" human beings - however it may be done scientifically - then they would still be human. Humans have rights.

Besides that, if they breed some kind of genetic "superhuman," they would probably turn out like Khan Noonien Singh, believing they're superior to everyone else and trying to take absolute power.

 

[Stevicus]

Ethics-Shmethics I would raise a heart donor in a ...erm...heartbeat.

I've heard that cloning technology might have some potential in the area of organ donation. I've heard of the possibility of cloning certain organs, which wouldn't require creating an entire human being.

 

[BSM1]

I've heard that cloning technology might have some potential in the area of organ donation. I've heard of the possibility of cloning certain organs, which wouldn't require creating an entire human being.

Well I would want to buy them a beer or a cup of coffee. I'm not totally...erm...heartless.

 

[Nous]

Would it be ethical?
To engineer soldiers and grow bodies for spare parts

It wouldn't be legal. I don't know where anyone would get the idea that doing such could possibly be ethical.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I dont believe in trying to program purpose. That's the stuff of dystopia. Especially on non-consenting beings. So no to the supersoldiers. As for body parts, I wouldn't risk growing a whole organism with capacity for sentience and sapience. Grow it without a brain or, better yet, grow the individual organs you need separately. Less resource intensive and less wasteful, and doesn't risk killing a self-aware human being.

 

[VioletVortex]

Engineering biological soldiers is certainly unethical in my view, but the idea of growing human bodies for spare parts sounds interesting. It seems distributing, but it wouldn't necessarily imply that the bodies are sentient, or even in possession of a mind.

 

[Enoch07]

Of course this is just science fiction/fantasy so you have to bear with me:
Facts:
It is possible to create test tube babies

It is possible to manipulate the thought processes and emotions of a developing fetus through chemicals, sounds, and other input.

There are labs designed to grow this child from birth to adulthood with no contact with the outside world other than what they are taught to believe/feel about it in a controlled environment.

Would it be ethical?
To engineer soldiers and grow bodies for spare parts

Very dangerous territory. I could see cloning individual parts for replacement, seperate from a human body, if possible. But to create a full human and then kill them or dismember them as needed for parts is unethical.

 

[HonestJoe]

Why not? almost all societies do it post birth to some degree anyway without test tubes

We don’t create people with those purposes in mind, giving them no choice in the matter. Obviously people can volunteer for military service and can volunteer for various forms of medical donation (living and after death) but the key word is volunteer.

 

[columbus]

Would it be ethical?
To engineer soldiers and grow bodies for spare parts

Even just the possibilities created by modern stem cell research make me a little queasy.
The unfortunate fact is that humans have a terrible track record for using new technology in a responsible and ethical way. Or recognizing moral issues created by previously unknown techniques, and dealing with them humanely in advance.
Advances in life engineering technology scare me, given my low opinion of the ethics of humans overall.
Tom

 

[Quintessence]

Until humans change their ethical standards for non-human persons, I'm hard-pressed to shoot something like this down. We already do crap like this to non-human persons, and not for their species' benefit, but for ours.

 

[BSM1]

Until humans change their ethical standards for non-human persons, I'm hard-pressed to shoot something like this down. We already do crap like this to non-human persons, and not for their species' benefit, but for ours.

What is a non-human person?

 

[Quintessence]

What is a non-human person?

For animists, "person" - a being regarded as an individual with agency and rights - does not mean "human." If you have to ask this question, it's likely you believe "person" only applies to "humans," which is the norm in contemporary Western culture.

 

[BSM1]

For animists, "person" - a being regarded as an individual with agency and rights - does not mean "human." If you have to ask this question, it's likely you believe "person" only applies to "humans," which is the norm in contemporary Western culture.

Really trying to wrap my mind around this concept. Could you gave me an example?

 

[columbus]

Really trying to wrap my mind around this concept. Could you gave me an example?

Pet owners often imbue their little darlings with more personhood than huge categories of humans that they don't like.

For animists, "person" - a being regarded as an individual with agency and rights - does not mean "human." If you have to ask this question, it's likely you believe "person" only applies to "humans," which is the norm in contemporary Western culture.

In all honesty I think people tend to see personhood as a relative thing. People or animals that you are attached to emotionally are more of a person than ones you aren't. That's why it's so easy to demonize other groups or categories of people.
Tom

 

[BSM1]

Pet owners often imbue their little darlings with more personhood than huge categories of humans that they don't like.


In all honesty I think people tend to see personhood as a relative thing. People or animals that you are attached to emotionally are more of a person than ones you aren't. That's why it's so easy to demonize other groups or categories of people.
Tom

None of the above makes any of the above a "person". Wishful thinking is just that--wishful thinking.

 

[Quintessence]

In all honesty I think people tend to see personhood as a relative thing. People or animals that you are attached to emotionally are more of a person than ones you aren't. That's why it's so easy to demonize other groups or categories of people.
Tom

Maybe, but that's not really the angle I'm coming at it from as an animist. It has very little if anything to do with my emotional attachment (or lack thereof). Begin an animist doesn't mean you don't kill or harm, but it does mean you don't use the excuse of "but that isn't a person" to justify ethical maxims. Applying ethics to the non-human world is very, very depauperate in Western culture, but an animist really thinks about it. As an example, a typical American housing developer doesn't bother going "oh wait, if I use standard practices I'll be guilty of ecological genocide... is this really needed and really worth it? How can I do my housing development in a way that avoids genocide?" There are some that do - there are a few conservation-minded housing developments around the country (I grew up in one). But it is, sadly, the exception rather than the norm.

Neither here nor there. Main point I was aiming for is I don't subscribe to human exceptionalism. If we call raising humans for parts (with the intention of this being used to benefit other humans) unacceptable, it is especially unacceptable to subject non-humans to that. But we don't do that as a culture, so I have a hard time saying "nope, that isn't ethical." I want to, but double standards have to go away.