BEFORE YOU RESPOND: PLEASE READ THE ENTIRETY OF MY RESPONSE.
I'm trying to avoid confrontation at all cost.
Careful, your agenda is showing.
I don't see how using a preexisting term that doesn't contain loaded connotation leads into any agenda. Your using manufactured deflationary terms when you can use preexisting terms that apply within the context of this dicussion.
You are trying to have an ethical discussion about the application of Eugenics, but can't understand how the belief that one is capable of assuming the role of God intersects with the discussion?
You're irrelevant and a waste of time. Castration is ordered.
That's a strawman. My believe is not that one is capable of assuming the role of God. Firstly, I don't believe no "one" can sit atop eugenics as the sole prorietor and make rules as they please, and I've demonstrating this by having a dicussion with you. If I believed one person (myself) should assume the role as the sole proprietor of eugenics, then I would not engage in discussion with others, asking their opinions, and being opened to convince otherwise.
Secondly, the usage of the term "God" (capital g) is defused by the fact that I don't believe a single person should be the proprietor over the decisions made on what is and is not acceptable in human eugenics. God (capital g) has no equals. In my perspective, these decisions should be lead by experts in the field of ethics and medical ethics, followed by experts in the field of the relevant sciences, followed by voting members of the states, e.i. the citizens.
You're simply trying to pretend like there is something else to discuss. Some "higher" form of discussion I am not engaging in.
Glow a little brighter.
This is the reality of what is being done when people engage in gene editing. Pretending these issues are irrelevant to the "idea" is trying to create an alternate universe where ideas exist apart from their employ.
"You're simply trying to pretend", Insinuating motive is akin to an ad hominem, which is a fallacy. And there is no "higher form of discussion", only a different one. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking down to you when I say we're speaking a different language. There are different branches in the laws of logic and philosophy, and we're currently talking past each other. To frame it as if I'm claiming principles are a higher form of discussion compared to pragmatics, is a misunderstanding.
Secondly, gene editing in humans is not a reality as it stands in the present, so to claim "
This is the reality of what is being done when people engage in gene editing" is simply not true. You cannot make a truth claim to something that does not yet exist.
You seem to be growing hostile, and I'm hoping to keep this discussion civil. Believe me when I say, my responses to you are not malicious, or carry any hostility. I'm thinking everything you say through, and responding as intelligibly as reasonably possible. There is no emotion that goes into my responses.
Now you're speaking in pragmatism.
Because the clip was of Freiza creating a hypothetical race, and hypotheticals are based on axioms (established truths). Human genetic editing on the otherhand is entirely theoretical, meaning we cannot establish hypothetical since there are no axioms to base your hypotheticals on.
What is the difference between killing every black person and editing every black baby out of the future? If I can make it illegal to have black babies - then how is that any different from exterminating an entire race - genocide?
Like I said - at least rounding people up and shooting them in the head is honest work, as it makes it very obvious and clear what you intend and what you are doing.
I asked earlier if you subscribed to the B-theory of time, but you didn't respond. Essentially, the B-theory of time is a philosophical position that the flow of time is an illusion and that the past, present, and future are equally real. The only alternate view is the A-theory of time, which is that only the present is real. The B-theory of time holds up more, and is what's subscribed by most modern day philosophers.
Now, the easy way to answer your question "
what's the difference between killing every black person and editing every black baby out of the future?", is as I said before, which is that moral consideration is only granted to that which is alive and sentient, meaning we don't grant moral consideration to rocks because they are neither alive, nor sentient, and we don't grant moral consideration to living things like plants or bacteria because while they are alive, they are not sentient. Existence is a precursor to sentience and being alive, and without existence, there can be no sentience or life. By that logic, the non-existent are not granted moral consideration.
Now, one could ask "are you saying no future human can be granted current moral consideration, e.i. in the form of environmental conservation for future children, etc.?". I would then refer to back to the B-theory of time. Since the past, present, and future are all real, then one's action in the present, will become true in the future, and once the present becomes the past, will remain true in the past. By that logic, black babies that are edited out of the present, will not exist in the future, and once the present becomes the past, those children have never existed. Children that aren't edited out of the present do exist in the future, and this deserve some loose form of moral consideration.
The best way I can think to make this easier to understand is to think of the Terminator.
You must be registered for see images
If Terminator followed the B-theory of time, Skynet would not send back a T800 to kill Sarah Conor, on account that John Conor already exists in the future. If the T800 was successful in terminating Sarah Conor, John Conor wouldn't exist in the future, so there would be no initial reason to push Skynet to send a T800 to the past to terminate Sarah Conor. Since John Conor does exist in the future, it's a guaranteed fact that the T800 would fail in terminating Sarah Conor 100% of the time, so Skynet knowing this, would not have sent a terminator after Sarah.
In summation;
That which will exist already exist, and that which will not exist will never exist. If the black babies are erased out of existence, they will never exist, and once the present becomes the past, have never existed, thus deserving no moral consideration.
By that same token, you are arguing that gene editing will have the capability to eliminate genetic flaws. Blah-blah, yadda-yadda, and does that merit moral consideration?
You're engaging in pilpull - creating an ever-shifting and amorphous set of conversational goals to try and appear as though you are in control of this conversation and hold the higher ground of understanding.
To presume that gene editing will be capable of selecting any set of defects and then cure them to such a degree as to make a subject of whether or not it should be illegal to not receive those treatments establishes that gene editing be a solid technology.
"
you are arguing that gene editing will have the capability to eliminate genetic flaws", Yes, because genetic editing as it stands does have the capability of eliminating genetic flaws. When I claimed I studied this in my original post, I legitimately meant I studied this at uni. I'm a science major with a B.S. in biochem, and I minored in criminal justice. Genetic editing, namely, CRISPR Cas9, has proven to reverse the effects of genetically inherited diseases, and transmitted disease. A study I can reference to is one where tests were performed on mice with muscular dystrophy and HIV. CRISPR, which can be simply described as a gene splicing tool found in bacteria, was successfully able to target codons that caused the muscular dystrophy and correct the disease in the mice, within the matter of several therapeutic injections. No, The presumption that gene editing will have the capability to eliminate genetic flaws is loaded in my question of does it consider moral consideration.
Stop trying to create a conversation that doesn't exist. Stop trying to create an elevated state of knowledge that simply doesn't exist outside of your own vacuous cranium. These are very pointed questions at the nature of what you are attempting to achieve. If you can't answer them, then you are not worth my time.
I'd imagine you would agree with me that this conversation isn't going in the best of directions. I'm not going to stop and create the conversation that doesn't exist, because the one we're currently having, where we're talking past one another isn't productive. I don't see why you'd want me to stop, unless your goal is confrontation, and not discussion. You seemed like a well-tempered guy until this response, and you've seemed to have wise inputs in other thread forums, so I'm hoping this conversation can actually go some place.
And again, the discussion I'm trying to arrive at is not "elevated", it's one that addresses principles. Principled discussion is no greater than pragmatic discussion, in the same way a screw driver is no better than a wrench. Both are useful tools, but neither are useful in all situations. The same applies with principles and pragmatics.
Here you are again, pretending there is something else to discuss.
Let's move to a different principled argument for a moment, to show you how "pragmatics" are very much relevant, even in this case. Abortion. There should never be a reason this powerful medical technology should be taken off the table for parents, right?
Yet, by your own definition - abortion can easily be seen as murder. Further, we can carry it over into eugenics as programs to 'assist' with abortions disproportionately go to blacks within the population. From a statistical standpoint, blacks are the target of a eugenics program at abortion clinics.
This idea of yours that there is some sort of 'principled discussion' where the principles exist free from the consequences and nuances of a technology existing is simply absurd. You may as well be trying to say: "So, chemistry, guys, should we be using it?" Or "rape, guys, perfectly okay, right?"
Pragmatics can apply to abortion because abortion currently exists. There are axioms in place upon once one could have a pragmatic discussion involving hypotheticals to come to conclusions. Pragmatics cannot apply to human genetic editing because human genetic editing does not currently exist. There are no axioms established on the practice of editing human genes, so you cannot have a pragmatic dicussion, especially one that involves hypotheticals.
Sidenote: I am pro-life.
Let me introduce you to the conversation you're not seeing... Anons, this is a kike. This is how they attempt to debate. "You don't know what I am talking about and aren't qualified to be holding this conversation. I hope you do better next time." This one is particularly humorless and doesn't command much public appeal - but there are others who are very effective at making people laugh. They will use this to try and make you feel as though you are losing the debate, or being stupid for holding your beliefs. They love like buttons and will use bot/smurf accounts to push likes on their comments as a catty way of trying to humiliate you.
Win by remaining relatively calm and keeping in mind that your goal isn't to actually get them to agree to or understand, anything. Your goal is simply to talk to the bystander and point out to them how the sons of satan are speaking empty truths that evade the key points that people care about.
There is no intent behind anything I say. The intentions are already in my words. My questions are for the sake of a deeper understanding, a view of opposing opinion, a sense of perspective on my opinion, and a possible change in my position. The same goes with my arguments. I really don't want you to interpret anything I'm doing, or saying with malice, dude. Sincerly.
Says the guy whose entire post amounted to: "You are speaking a different language than me. I am trying to get you to speak my higher, more developed sense of moral comprehension. My generous descent from the heavens to assist you in becoming as developed as me is running out. Hurry now and agree with me or forever be lost in the darkness."
The people out there, including those within your family, are more capable than you give them credit for and are more than able to see through the hollow wisdom you offer, particularly with a little help from dragon fire.
The questions I have asked you outline, rather clearly, the moral and ethical issues surrounding gene editing and its implementation within society. Answering those questions isn't meant to give you a clear moral verdict on the entire concept of gene editing. I am not going to try and deceive people into believing it is a wonderful thing - or a horrible thing. What I am going to say, however, is that it opens the door to the malice of people in a way we haven't truly seen, before. In a world where eugenics programs have existed when they did include murder - you wish to ignore the idea that these same eugenics programs can now be used without provoking the visceral resistance to murder most people have.
Is it okay to consider parts of the human genome defective and then to edit them out? Is it okay to make it law to abide by certain principles?
We answer these questions by exploring the context of history. Would Hitler have simply edited the jews out of existence if he had gene editing technologies? Would dictators edit intelligence/rebelliousness out? Could it be done without the knowledge or consent of the parents?
You may call this "getting lost in endless pragmatics" - but the reality of whether or not we should "empower" ourselves with such a technology comes back to that principle of who is fit to play God. Who determines what is and is not a defect to be edited out? If it is the parents, and the parents exclusively - then the question of law is irrelevant. If the answer is that the law gets to determine what features are or are not a defect, then we must evaluate the ideology and implementation of law, as well.
Your whole "ideal discussion" is ultimately a farce. If I decide to edit the genes of my child, then it will be done. That is all there is to it. Law, your opinion, etc doesn't factor in. Even the ability to do it doesn't really factor in, as I can create such capability. For others, it may - but suffice to say that it is only a matter of time before the technology becomes available. Trying to have an ideological argument about whether or not it should exist or be allowed is rather nonsense. You may as well ask whether or not people should be allowed to get drunk or high. Even if the answer is "No" - good fucking luck making it (not) happen. Where there is a demand for a product/service, there will typically be found a provider, whether it is legal or illegal.
As I said - you pretend as though there is a 'higher' discussion to be had, when there really isn't. Should cooking exist? Well... maybe not - but good luck removing fire from humanity. The cat is already out of that bag, and arguing about whether or not it should exist as an option for how to eat food is, ultimately, an exercise in futility as most people will have the choice available to them - legal, ethical, or not. Thus, they should be given the tools and insight necessary to understand how that choice applies to them and what related issues to be prepared to have thought through.
Different doesn't mean higher, man -- c'mon.
Please understand, I'm not speaking down on you. I'm trying to course correct this discussion before it goes to shit because we're currently talking past each other.
