If it is ethical to clone people at all, then it would be ethical to clone those people. What is it about these particular people or types of people that would make it unethical?

? :chin: What part of your post is in agreement with science? — Athena

Um, all of it? I didnt deny that the brain develops until 25. What I said was, and amazingly you quoted me and still got it wrong, is that you do not need a fully developed at 25 brain in order to have good judgement. I didnt say your judgement wasnt better with a fully developed brain at 25, you inserted that yourself. There are 25+ year olds who have poor judgements, and youths under 25 with good judgement. That was my point, hence my suggestion of a basic test on an individual basis. Some under 25 year olds can handle a credit card or voting, some 25+ over obviously cannot.
Hopefully that clears things up, cuz I am certainly not a science denier.

Yes, in theory.

Wait, time out. Where did I say or imply I saw no value in science?

Ok, so anecdotal. Fair enough.

I dont think a brain needs to be fully developed in order for a person to have good judgement. Under 25 isnt the same for everyone, so doesnt it make sense to judge on an individual basis through some sort of Basic test?

Ok so the former. So what are you basing that on? Obviously niether of us is aware of all the cases but it seems to me that a person could justify suicide by reasoning that lifes ups and downs arent enough to make it worthwhile, for example.
Doesnt seem like you have enough data to take the position that you are.

Just to clarify, you are saying its never arrived at that way, or that its not possible to arrive to it that way?

You dont think that someone can arrive at the decision to kill themsevles rationally and/or logically? (In situations where they arent terminal or suffering horribly etc, What I mean is opting out of life not necessarily a “mercy” suicide if that makes sense.)

I like that sentiment. It seems draconic to test for voting like that but ignorance or stupidity causes real damage, is it wrong to defend ourselves by raising the bar so ignorant fools dont ruin everything?

I dont have the time to respond to the points made to other people another time with you, nor to tediously respond to your cherry picked portions (again, most were not even directed at you) point by point. Besides, ive heard your sermon already. Many times.
I mean no offense, but I restrict my forum activity to engagement of ideas rather than listening to preachers “educate” me about their ideology, so U wont be responding to any of that. Im sure you can understand its not personal.

Im saying that when they can have a basic understanding of the impact on their own lives. They may not have the same depth of understanding as they may have when they are older, but those are lessons to be learned.

It is the latter, ethical standards cannot be applied to creatures/things which cannot comprehend ethics. There may be other, practical reasons to treat these creatures or things well, or wny number of ways, but ethically isnt one of them in my view.

Your counter-examples dont hold much water, i dont think how we treat dead bodies matters ethically, and someone who is so compromised mentally (psychopaths, severly mentally disabled etc) they cannot understand ethics likewise do not matter ethically. We are free to make simple practical decisions in those cases. A bullet in the head for the psycho seems fine to me. For the severly mentally disabled, I realize that the sentimental attachments of loved ones are real and important so am happy for those loved ones to decide on the treatment etc, but I wouldnt consider it an ethical matter except where practical matters interfere with the ethical concerns of actual moral agents. Similarly, I think a pet is in the realm of sentimental attachment and emotions and should be considered in a practical way or according to the preferences of the pets owner. I still do not think it makes sense to apply ethics to creatures not capable of them.

So I think what you are left with only one counter argument here, that under my view it would be ok to torture the psychopathic, the severly retarded, or pets. I would answer that absent a practical reason to torture/harm the subject, the moral agent could only have immoral reasons for doing so. This is where I would apply the sentiments you expressed above about amoral creatures entering human moral spheres.

But take the generalized AMC. Some infants may not ever gain moral comprehension--it could be some kind of severe mental disability--and yet they do remain morally significant. — jamalrob

Im not sure they do, how mentally disabled are we talking about? If they cannot understand right and wrong...

I can go along with your position that interactions between non-human animals are not governed by morality, and that animals are not moral agents.The trouble is that the human treatment of animals is part of the moral sphere, simply owing to their involvement in our practices. In doing things with animals we involve them in our relations with each other, and the "ethicality" of those intrahuman relations is thereby in a manner of speaking transferred on to the direct relations between humans and animals. — jamalrob

I think the bolded portion conflates practices of humans with human moral sphere. Ergo, you cannot sneak animals in by starting with their involvement in human practices, those practices need not be in the moral sphere.
I think that means the “transfer” isnt valid.

I think just about anything can be "included in ethics" that concerns human actions, so the human treatment of animals is or can be an ethical matter. Let's agree that animals are not moral agents. Does it follow that human actions involving them are not a matter for ethics? I don't think so. Some version of the argument from marginal cases (AMC) can be used to show this. E.g., the treatment of infants is a matter for ethics even though they might have no concept of right and wrong. — jamalrob

The case with infants is different, the infant will grow up and gain moral comprehension, the animal will not. The ethics concerning infants do not come from their temporary lack of ethical insight, but rather our moral responsibility to them as fellow human beings.
Anyway, we seem to have a fundamental disagreement, I do not think just about anything can be “included in ethics”, but if I did I would probably agree with you here.
As for pets, I dont see a relevent distinction.

I would just call gods existence a fiction of the bible, or religion. That is the way god exists. That seems like more direct phrasing to me.

Our interaction with animals is not an ethical matter. Ethics are a social contract which animals cannot agree too. What animals DO abide by is nature, survival. That is something humans are capable of understanding, and Id go further and say that humans are already doing that. We are a part of the food chain after all. Its just incoherent, to me at least, to include them in ethics. Even if we ignore that and we focus only on what humans can do to measure animals according to our rules, woildnt we be obligated to do everything we can to reduce the suffering of animals inflicted by other animals? It doesnt make sense.

Its not a thorny problem at all once you realize the difference between knowledge and what the knowledge is about.
I too have read Terra’s other posts, likewise with yours and many others. Is that relevent? I was talking about the charge he laid, not his general philosophical views.

I have yet to see from you anything other than naive realism. — Wayfarer

Excuse me, but in what way is what he said wrong? I missed the part where you addressed the charge of simple confusion of knowledge and what knowledge is about.

You know well enough you'd be perfectly healthy being a vegan for the rest of your life, Sir, so long as your diet was varied and you got enough protein. Essential amino acids can be harvested from plants and B 12 can be synthesized (i think). — Nils Loc

Only for some, such a diet doesnt work with everyones system. Also, just becuase you can survive on a certain diet doesnt mean it is the healthiest, or even that healthy at all, for a person to have

Our dominion over animals is not unethical, it is natural.
Ethics concern humans, it is created by humans for humans, and even then only about what specific humans or groups of humans agree to. It doesnt make sense to apply ethics to creatures not capable of ethics, you might as well apply ethics to a rock. Non-sequitur, apples and oranges etc
Also, the way humans treat animals has nothing on the way animals treat animals. Nature is a savage, merciless and relentless wasteland of suffering and horror. Mothers and fathers eat their young, predators target the weakest or sickest, groups of animals devour thier own, wolves and many other creatures eat prey alive, mother birds throw their young to thier deaths, animals are constantly starving to death, or dying slow and painful deaths and on and on and any kind of combination of the suffering above. By human standards, the animal world is an absolute horror show. What are you gonna do about that? If you want animals to have a seat at the table of ethics then it stands to reason that we prioritize the ethical violations against them, since they inflict so much more suffering on each other than we do, how exactly do you propose we go about holding animals accountable for that?

Does the narrative given in the book exist?

Anything you can put into words or thought exists, the question is in what way it exists. Harry Potter exists, as a fictional character. Before the actual writing if that fiction Harry Potter also existed, as an idea that the writer had.
Does the narrative of the book exist? Yes, as you can reference the narrative, it clearly exists in some way. It exists as a narrative of the specific book.

I think all conscious states are 3, in the sense that that the state (3) is operating and/or informing the other states 1, 2 and 4.
1 still precludes 2, though I see my mistake there, you didnt say 1and 2. If we exclude 3 for my reason above would you say only 1 is operating then?

How about whenever each individual can have a basic understanding of the consequences of the action(s) in question? In addition, to be consistent we should allow all such decisions together. If they are old enough to assume risk on their own for something like personal harm playing organized contact sports then we should extend that to all their decisions.

Ok, so in what way are you 1 when you are asleep? Your take is that 1 and 2 are operating while in a dream state, but it seems to me 1 precludes itself from 2.
Also, where are you going with this? I am interested in what you think peoples answers will be relevent to.

I agree, that kind of perspective is what I mean by demystified.

I didnt mean hallucinations, I meant that you arent getting sensory data in the tank, and was interested in how you think that might contrast or factor in with your view here

What about when you are awake and in a sensory deprivation tank? Would you say that is the same as dreaming (as far as where your brain is being fed from, memory or “current sensory input)?

Ya, I am having trouble not seeing overlap with those terms so I need clarification as to how exactly they are meant.

Can you give a definition for the states you mention, 1-4?

I see no problem with suicidal thoughts, people should think about death alot in my opinion, so that it demystifies it. Fear and anxiety over death is at the root of many evils.
Obviously, if someone is sick, they should be helped but thinking about suicide doesnt mean you are sick. Indeed, we would want someone to think long and hard before they commit suicide. Its no small thing.
As for suicide itself, I also don’t see a problem. There is just something unacceptable about forcing someone to live if they would rather die to me. Whatever sovereignty a person has for themselves, the last shred of it will be found in the ability to, if nothing else in life, decide when you keep living or not.

I dont think its true that EVERY action we take effects the outcome of the egg, or more to the point anything else. There is no necessary link between things in a causal chain, although of course potentially there is.
So there are many things that happen that do not change the outcome of which egg, the things that effect the outcome of the egg is a special set.
If I understand you correctly, you are essentially applying the butterfly effect to the sperm and egg, but not EVERY butterfly flapping its wings contributes to a hurricane on the other side of the world. Its just that one might/could.

We shouldnt, eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

Our biology isnt made for 4D, thats all. Will it ever be? Perhaps. We will learn more and more about our biology, and 4D. Eventually we might alter our biology to understand or sense 4D, or invent a proper interface that might get us there.
I dont think “not smart enough” is right, that is like saying we are not smart enough to have a bats radar senses. A 4D being, whatever that might entail, could very well have no ability to imagine a 3D universe and instead forced to rely on math models the way we do for 4D. Doesnt mean its dumb, or that we are.

Re not all thought being correlations, so for example I can think musically. I'm not correlating anything to anything else when I do that, but I am thinking. Rhythms, melodies or other sets of pitches, including chords, more abstract patterns, etc. might simply be "present-to-mind" for me when I'm thinking musically. — Terrapin Station

There is a correlation between the notes to create the rhythms, melodies etc. Is there not?
Also, you use the word “might”, you have doubts?

Seconded. Nice opening post sir.

Ok, sure. Things can still be held to the definition we assign to them.
Your second sentence I agree with also, but Devons99 is trying to make a case otherwise.

Pleasure and pain by definition pertain to good and bad. It doesnt make sense to say “I dont think pleasure is good”.
The problem arises when you are trying to tell people what gives them pleasure or pain, such as with the excersise example.

In both examples, it is your own views on pleasure and pain you are using. The person exercising could lament not lazing about playing video games and see excersise as not worth the trade-off. The murderer might very well not care at all about being shunned or punished.
We can go back and forth like this forever, you can make sweeping statements about the way people think and I can come up with exceptions, all that does is prove my point.

Good is pleasure > pain for individual and groups.
Evil is pleasure < pain for individual and groups.

I see nothing arbitrary about the above definitions?

I don't see what other metric apart from pleasure/pain that could be used? — Devans99

The way the individual or group views pain/pleasure while perhaps not quite arbitrary will be different between individuals and groups (and with individuals within a group) and in the sense that the differences in how pain/pleasure is viewed
Are based on the experiences of the individual or group I think “arbitrary” is close enough to refute what you are claiming.