Genetic Engineering and a Secular Morality System

  • #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 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
733
0
Scientific Method said:
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.
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.
 
  • #3
GeD
147
0
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:
  • #4
GeD said:
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?
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.
 
  • #5
GeD
147
0
Scientific Method said:
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.
Confusion beset only because you placed the statements together...

Scientific Method said:
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.
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:
  • #6
Icebreaker
There is no way that a creature of human designs will stand the test of time.
 
  • #7
GeD
147
0
That implies that the human design will never adapt or change over the course of time...When indeed it does.
 
  • #8
Icebreaker
If humans are around to design it.
 
  • #9
GeD
147
0
Which is a condition that is not necessary to happen.

Also, why are we forgetting the possibility that the human might also make it?
 
  • #10
Icebreaker
From the look of things, we're lucky to make it through this century.
 
  • #11
GeD
147
0
Ah, so we should take the experiences of the last 100 years, over the experiences of the last 2000 years?
 
  • #12
learningphysics
Homework Helper
4,099
5
Scientific Method said:
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.
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?
 
  • #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 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
Scientific Method said:
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.
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.
 
  • #15
learningphysics
Homework Helper
4,099
5
Scientific Method said:
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.
"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.
 
  • #16
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
learningphysics said:
"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.
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.
 
  • #17
292
0
Hi,

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

juju
 
  • #18
755
0
Scientific Method said:
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 [Broken]
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
755
0
juju said:
Hi,

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

juju
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.
 

Related Threads on Genetic Engineering and a Secular Morality System

  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
740
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
61
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
42
Views
8K
Top