What I wanted to show is that moral claims of adults addressed to other adults are actually the expression of personal desires in the disguise of superhuman commands (categorical imperatives). In the past, leaders could reinforce their commands by ascribing them to God. Some weaker processes without implying God are happening until our days. These are relics of olden times but still effective. Even more: many moral commandments like "Be altruistic." are themselves the expression of selfish desires. I hope you agree the claim to share with the poor is not an unselfish claim from the side of the poor.

The same with praise and blame. An article in a newspaper opened my eyes, it was something like: "According to a survey most children find their grandparents great." And do you know why? As the children answered because they were given money by their grandmas and grandpas. I don't want to say these children are little monsters, they are humans and as humans they tend to praise those who are of use to them and that's OK and quite natural. I only wanted to emphasize that moral claims like "be altruistic" or moral praise and blame like "he is a good (or bad) fellow", are themselves, strange as it might be, interested and not unselfish expressions. I was astonished myself when I made this discovery.

any talk of "benefits of that project" will refer to (and be based upon) emotional aspects of it. Your dichotomy is looking at different aspects of the same phenomenon. When someone presents verifiable proofs for the benefits of X, he also likes this project and finds that idea sympathetic. — Mariner

Take this example: in Europe there is much fear about the so-called "GM maize". The scientists have shown the advantages of that sort of corn: low cost, better crops and pest-resistance. The opponents have one single argument: fear, which is totally irrational lacking any objective basis. Do you see the difference now?

I think there is a difference between:

a) saying "I like this project, I find the idea somehow sympathetic." without being able to present any rational argument for that idea and

b) presenting verifiable proofs for the benefits of that project.

Do you think it's all the same?

Yes, but emotional preferences and fears are less rational than rational arguments by definition.

I wanted to stress out that people often mention ethical concerns when speaking about new technologies like cloning or genetic engineering. They speak as if they were the speakers of a higher authority than man but in fact they only express their own preferences and fears. Most people can refer to a higher authority than themselves but at some point the chain of authorities ends up and at the end there is no holy spirit but a human.

This human who had to make the rules had no other authority above himself, so he had to be creative and to make the laws according to his own will and his mind because nobody could tell him how to decide. The same applies to a group or a commission: there is nobody to tell them how to decide - they have to follow only their own will. Do you see my point: any rule, even an ethical one which seems to have a superhuman aura (no one can afford to contradict an ethical rule) is but the expression of the personal preference of an individual or a group. Its only basis is this personal preference of somebody and according to this origin is its authority - quite limited.

So, I feel free to create my own rules because I am as well a human as any other who created rules before me. To be more precise, I don't follow any specific rule at all, I do what I like, as the first rule founders did. But don't worry -- fortunately my wants are not in conflict with my environment so that I can enjoy a happy life in harmony with the folks around me. Isn't it astonishing? I don't follow any moral rules (I swear), I only do what I like and I nevertheless am happy. How can this be?

You are right, I should not have put it like "What are we allowed?" but rather: "Is it ethically acceptable?" It annoys me that every time a new invention, technology or a mere idea appears in the media this question arises. Suppose a medical team has discovered a genetic technology to let human teeth grow a third and a fourth time - as often as necessary.

Now, I would not object if the idea would be discussed from various viewpoints of usefulness, sustainability, ecology ... etc. But soon there will arise the question whether it is "ethically acceptable" and I ask myself what shall this question be for? Does it not suffice to discuss the utility, the risks, the benefits and the long term consequences? What can be added by an ethical examination? Please help me - I only can see that we learn whether the members of the commission like the idea, whether they are disconcerted or scared by it.

This is my point: every time people mention ethical concerns they actually mean their own emotional preferences and fears and these are irrelevant compared to the rational arguments about benefits and risks.