Karlos wrote:
Hey dude, that wasn't actually my opinion, it was supposed to provoke some thought on the idea that if one uses only what seems to be a logical and rational approach to all matters, you can justify an awful lot of things that many people (myself included) feel are clearly wrong/unethical.
Well that's what I was arguing at - something is only "clearly" wrong because there exists some logical and rational argument supporting that viewpoint.
There probably exists some kind of argument to exist all sorts of things, but I should hope we can come up with counter-arguments for anything which we think is "clearly" unethical.
For example, the suggestions made were to improve future generations physical well being by attempting to remove what could be demonstrated scientifically to be defective genes from the species. That's what I meant by "not scientifically unreasonable" (which wasnt the best turn of phrase, but meant to imply makes sense logically). I also state that there probably isnt a sane person who would be comfortable with that suggestion, but why?
I don't think science makes any ethical suggestions at all. It may give facts - such as this gene causes that, or throwing two lumps of uranium causes a rather big bang - but I don't that automatically gives us any argument that we should go ahead and do those things (be it trying to prevent a gene from propagating, or setting off atomic bombs). I think you're confusing the scientific statements that make sense, and the ways in which people might use that information - they are two different things.
In order to support the idea that people shouldn't be able to reproduce, you also have to combine the scientific facts with the opinion that removing defective genes overrides someone's right to have a child. Also this is very much a matter of probability - usually AIUI there isn't a certainty that genes will be passed on that cause a condition, only a possiblity. Not to mention that a "defective gene" is a subjective and non-scientific opinion. A government might decide that all sorts of traits are undesirable, and try to breed them out. Cultures could also be wiped out by preventing them from having children (Nazi Germany and Jews?)
Simply because it is unethical, was the answer I was hoping for...
Something is unethical, because it is unethical?
The question arises, where do ethics come from? How do you define what is ethical and what is not?
Well, it's all a matter of opinion. But I prefer it when people can at least explain why they think it is wrong (either by describing effects of it that I might not have forseen, or reasoning from some initial set of axioms that I might agree with), rather than just saying circular things like "it's wrong because it's immoral", or statements like "it's wrong because God says so" (which are useless, because you can simply say "it's right because God says so").
