Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Genetic Engineering and a Secular Morality System

  1. Jan 30, 2005 #1
    Morality is purely subjective: no value, moral belief, or ethical proclamation can be proven in the scientific sense to be truth, but rather only be justified based on personal subjective feelings.

    For those that don't believe in superstition, other sources of morality must be chosen. Morality is of course not purely the result of cultural indoctrination, but individuals/groups have instinctual moral drives as well, such as the ingroup/out group morality system, the system of inclusive fitness, and cooperation.

    The sun will burn out in one billion years and all societal gains will be lost. If intelligent species from Earth leave before that to a new solar system, the universe itself will also one day either implode into a black hole, or expand and distroy life as the rule of Entropy.

    One specific morality system is suggested by Professor John Hartung. He suggests that first we reject superstitious based moral beliefs. Then he says we should reject much of our innate ingroup/outgroup morality behaviors and take on a universal all-group morality system. Third, he says we should be prepared to to leave our solar system when the sun burns out, and that we should develop technology to create new universes to move into once our own universe destructs.

    Finally, he says that the way to achieve all of the above is to use genetic engineering to completely redesign humans to one that can accomplish the above. Here is his article: http://members.aol.com/toexist/pfehome.html
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 30, 2005 #2
    Really, my subjective feelings are the only thing I can really prove exist, even if only to myself.

    Science has maintained for over near half century that non-locality has not been falsified. So that might mean that, why you were born has a direct relation to why I decided to answer your post.

    So if physical structures have a non-local inference and I can not prove they exist, yet my subjective feelings as you say, I do know exist, cause me to make specific changes in physical structures. Just maybe, subjective feelings do in that sense have some truth to them.
     
  4. Jan 30, 2005 #3

    GeD

    User Avatar

    1. Morality is purely subjective: no value, moral belief, or ethical proclamation can be proven in the scientific sense to be truth, but rather only be justified based on personal subjective feelings.

    2. ...and take on a universal all-group morality system.

    Can you not see the BLATANT contradiction in these sentences already?

    However, I do agree with many of his ideas with relation to religion, existence and especially concering the survival of the species as being important. It will most likely be necessary to cooperate in order to survive the future of a billion years from now. If the need to leave our solar system and the 'creation of a new universe' is necessary, then I would agree that it would be a good idea to follow. But a universal all-group morality will not save us, only ourselves do.

    He seems to have chosen a meaning for existence that would appeal to many, just so he can avoid facing the question posed by nihilism.

    Genetically engineering humans for a single function is mass slavery. If we find that such a procedure necessary [for existence], it will be because of the situation we find ourselves in the universe, or as a result of morality taking on power it has no authority to have. His universal morality (if he wishes to make one) will simply be a drag in the same way he blames religion of doing.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2005
  5. Jan 30, 2005 #4
    My post confused you. I made the proclamation that morality is purely subjective, not John Hartung. Hartung suggested an all-group morality system and often makes absolute morality claims, not I.

    To those that believe in moral absolutes, I challenge you to use the Scientific Method to prove that murder or rape or theft is wrong or right.

    You mentioned genetic engineering being slavery. This is a very vague comment. Can you elaborate? Is not any law slavery because it may be enforced on someone who may not agree with it? Slavery in inherent in democracy because the majority will always force its will on the minority.
     
  6. Jan 30, 2005 #5

    GeD

    User Avatar

    Confusion beset only because you placed the statements together...

    My elaboration: people bred for the purpose of accomplishing Hartung's moral system and goals would be slavery of those people.
    Laws are indeed a type of slavery, the goal of which is the security of that nation or city. Both examples show the limiting of individual people's freedoms, and is definitely the result of democracy (I don't want to imply that only democracy does this).
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2005
  7. Jan 30, 2005 #6
    There is no way that a creature of human designs will stand the test of time.
     
  8. Jan 30, 2005 #7

    GeD

    User Avatar

    That implies that the human design will never adapt or change over the course of time...When indeed it does.
     
  9. Jan 30, 2005 #8
    If humans are around to design it.
     
  10. Jan 30, 2005 #9

    GeD

    User Avatar

    Which is a condition that is not necessary to happen.

    Also, why are we forgetting the possibility that the human might also make it?
     
  11. Jan 30, 2005 #10
    From the look of things, we're lucky to make it through this century.
     
  12. Jan 30, 2005 #11

    GeD

    User Avatar

    Ah, so we should take the experiences of the last 100 years, over the experiences of the last 2000 years?
     
  13. Jan 31, 2005 #12

    learningphysics

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    You cannot advocate one system of morality over another unless you already have a system of morality in place. How can this professor say we "should" do anything? By what criteria... what system of morality?
     
  14. Feb 2, 2005 #13
    The Message of Evolution

    by Professor John Entine

    Did you ever imagine that everything stops existing when you close your eyes -- and is recreated just as you open them? It helps to be about 3 years old and stuck on a bench in a silent place where people are praying. Perhaps you can even remember shutting your eyes very tightly -- to make sure that everything was gone -- then trying to open them quickly and suddenly enough to catch a glimpse of the void.

    Self-centered nonsense, of course . . . but unfortunately, this particular nonsense has an analogue in reality. Whether the cosmological constant is positive, negative or zero -- whether the universe is slated to expand into nothingness, contract into a black hole, or oscillate around an equilibrium point -- if evolution is left in the hands of natural selection, a time will come when there will be no evidence that anything was ever alive.

    Complete article at http://members.aol.com/toexist/Message.html
     
  15. Feb 3, 2005 #14

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Why exactly do you think the truth of a moral statement should be proven using a methodology best suited for quantitative, not qualitative analysis? Not to say that science has nothing to say about qualities, but it reaches it limits. Prove to me scientifically that Hamlet was conflicted about whether or not he should move on Claudius.
     
  16. Feb 3, 2005 #15

    learningphysics

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    "It is absolutely true that a universe where all beings are miserable is worse than a universe where all beings are happy."

    I think the above is true statement of a moral absolute. But it's unprovable.
     
  17. Feb 3, 2005 #16

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I think it might be his point that you need a reference frame from which to make that statement. The universe in which all beings are miserable is certainly bad from the vantage point of the miserable beings, but I doubt the universe itself cares.
     
  18. Feb 4, 2005 #17
    Hi,

    Most morality and ethics are self-evident. Put your heart and your head together on the problem and it will become clear.

    juju
     
  19. Feb 4, 2005 #18
    First this guy's got to get each and every human to recycle and take personal, individual responsibility for their actions etc. Genetic engineering won't do that.

    Next he's got to prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, why humans are so ultimately special and why they should be preserved and allowed to populate other areas of the universe instead of being instantaniously eliminated by an expanding sun (along with all the cabbage plants etcetera.)ok.
     
  20. Feb 4, 2005 #19
    I took your advice and the vision came to me that explained how it won't really matter what the sun does in 5 billion years or if humans survive their own BS or the sun's wacky antics.

    End transmission.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Genetic Engineering and a Secular Morality System
  1. Morals (Replies: 45)

  2. Secular weddings (Replies: 6)

Loading...