So someone's dying and you can choose to copy (not transplant) their mind from one body to another. If you were to do it, the other body would wake up very pleased that its life had beed saved as just as it was dying it suddenly awoke in this new body. In what way is this inferior to transplant?
Also, bear in mind that when I said 'immoral', that would include things like disrespect and selfishness. An act that is disrespectful and selfish is undoubtedly immoral. I am arguing against this sort of cloning being disrespectful or selfish, among other things. I mean, you could potentially have purely selfish motives, but that really isn't all there is to it. Also, I would say that putting a heroic and noble person back on the planet would probably be the absolute best application for such cloning, and I would say it was more of an honour than a dishonour. What's dishonourable about it? Someone lived well, was loved, and died nobly, and people would like to have them back. They could likely live longer and have a more and more positive effect on the world. I find it very strange that you think it would be an insult to someone to want to put them back on the planet especially since the amount of benefit such a good person could potentially provide is so high.
With the confusion that's arisen with this whole boat issue, the main question I was asking is written with relatively clear wording in the very same paragraph as the boat story itself. I'll paraphrase it here though. A loved one is killed and their corpse seriously damaged, but technology allows you to completely repair them and restart their mind. Would you take this offer? How about if their mind needed to be 're-installed' like a computer operating system? I feel this question is quite relevant to the discussion.
Finally, when it comes to art analogy, the reasons for the great valuing of an original over a perfect copy are almost entirely due to the nature of art and how we appreciate it. I honestly could, and in fact have, argued for hours and hours about what art is and what it means. Of course when it comes to music we have absolutely no qualms with making clone after clone and selling them as a mass produced product, and in fact in the east they have traditionally had a similar attitude to painting. In places such as Japan they have never paid any attention whatsoever to the concept of the original being somehow superior even to a perfect copy, and series of paintings such as '36 Views of Mount Fuji' were heavily replicated in wood block prints. If I'm not much mistaken, the creation of a wood block print for mass production actually destroys the original. The world of western art is full of rampant idol worship for the great artists. Anything originally drawn by someone we consider to be a genius is intrinsically superior. This is fading away through time, though we still maintain quite a western attitude for the most part. The Mona Lisa is a cultural and historic relic just as much as it is an artistic one, as you said, but here's what I think about the Tate Modern analogy: if there's some way to make absolutely 100% perfect copies of every piece of art there, then yes, that's fine. You could even open two of them to cut down on congestion. I mean, it wouldn't be alright if the Tate Modern burnt down, because it's a nice building and quite a big one, and if it was you who burnt it it certainly wouldn't be alright for you, but you gte my point.
mm I though you might say that about the sacrifice one =P But I suppose it depends on the context of the world. If cloning and resurrection is common then it would reduce the nobility of the sacrifice because they'd know they could come back. Giving your life for a cause is an incredibly sacred thing, like that monk that set himself on fire as a protest, if he'd been cloned the next day it would've defeated the purpose of his initial sacrifice.
As for the repairing thing, if we're talking about some magical cure all Wolverine-esque healing factor thing then I'd say they'd still be the same as it's basically repairing what exists currently. My definition of the original depends on at least some part of the original person remaining intact and some remnant of their mental faculties too. Enough to be repaired but not so little that it requires complete replacing.
And I can't explain why copying is inferior to transplant because it's just something I am fundamentally unable to get over. The original just IS the original and the copy is a copy, I can't explain why I believe this so strongly, I just do.
Well this has certainly been an interesting discussion, but it's clear neither of us is going to budge on this point so in fear of creating a page long essay I'd say we call it quits.
But on an semi-related note, selfishness and being disrespectful is not inherently immoral IMO. I mean you could refuse to share a chocolate bar with someone, which would be selfish, but certainly not immoral. Just as you could not take your hat off at a funeral, again, disrespectful but not immoral. I'd say that would be bad manners as opposed to being immoral.
I suppose if they were totally sure they'd be cloned, it may reduce the power behind the gesture (depending on their own belief in cloning), but I'd say that's fairly minor compared to keeping good people on the planet. If it was some form of protest suicide, then you'd probably just write in your will or suicide note 'please don't clone me'. Or in the monk's case, make an even bigger protest by coming back down and burning yourself again and again and again until they got the idea. People can then be sure that the monk know's exactly how painful a death by burning really is, and be amazed that he happily chooses to do it again and again for the cause. But that's besides the point, really.
In the question I put to you the person had died, and was effectively being resurrected by means of extreme repairing and a reboot of the mind. I added the idea that maybe they need to reinstall the mind because by that point it's basically exactly the same as cloning. In the example I gave they need millions of cells, in cloning just the one. Hyper efficient repairing then, really.
This feels a bit like arguing with religious people about the existence of a god. People generally aren't much keen on budging on their beliefs, and to an extent it's understandable. Probably best we stop now, yeah, last time I had this sort of argument it certainly did not make me a popular guy. At all XD
And on the final point, I'd say that unless there are reasons for those choices other than selfishness for the sake of selfishness and disrespect for the sake of disrespect then they are both immoral. Only slightly immoral, but immoral nonetheless. Immoral does often sound a bit strong though, so I know what you mean.
Also, bear in mind that when I said 'immoral', that would include things like disrespect and selfishness. An act that is disrespectful and selfish is undoubtedly immoral. I am arguing against this sort of cloning being disrespectful or selfish, among other things. I mean, you could potentially have purely selfish motives, but that really isn't all there is to it. Also, I would say that putting a heroic and noble person back on the planet would probably be the absolute best application for such cloning, and I would say it was more of an honour than a dishonour. What's dishonourable about it? Someone lived well, was loved, and died nobly, and people would like to have them back. They could likely live longer and have a more and more positive effect on the world. I find it very strange that you think it would be an insult to someone to want to put them back on the planet especially since the amount of benefit such a good person could potentially provide is so high.
With the confusion that's arisen with this whole boat issue, the main question I was asking is written with relatively clear wording in the very same paragraph as the boat story itself. I'll paraphrase it here though. A loved one is killed and their corpse seriously damaged, but technology allows you to completely repair them and restart their mind. Would you take this offer? How about if their mind needed to be 're-installed' like a computer operating system? I feel this question is quite relevant to the discussion.
Finally, when it comes to art analogy, the reasons for the great valuing of an original over a perfect copy are almost entirely due to the nature of art and how we appreciate it. I honestly could, and in fact have, argued for hours and hours about what art is and what it means. Of course when it comes to music we have absolutely no qualms with making clone after clone and selling them as a mass produced product, and in fact in the east they have traditionally had a similar attitude to painting. In places such as Japan they have never paid any attention whatsoever to the concept of the original being somehow superior even to a perfect copy, and series of paintings such as '36 Views of Mount Fuji' were heavily replicated in wood block prints. If I'm not much mistaken, the creation of a wood block print for mass production actually destroys the original. The world of western art is full of rampant idol worship for the great artists. Anything originally drawn by someone we consider to be a genius is intrinsically superior. This is fading away through time, though we still maintain quite a western attitude for the most part. The Mona Lisa is a cultural and historic relic just as much as it is an artistic one, as you said, but here's what I think about the Tate Modern analogy: if there's some way to make absolutely 100% perfect copies of every piece of art there, then yes, that's fine. You could even open two of them to cut down on congestion. I mean, it wouldn't be alright if the Tate Modern burnt down, because it's a nice building and quite a big one, and if it was you who burnt it it certainly wouldn't be alright for you, but you gte my point.
Reply
As for the repairing thing, if we're talking about some magical cure all Wolverine-esque healing factor thing then I'd say they'd still be the same as it's basically repairing what exists currently. My definition of the original depends on at least some part of the original person remaining intact and some remnant of their mental faculties too. Enough to be repaired but not so little that it requires complete replacing.
And I can't explain why copying is inferior to transplant because it's just something I am fundamentally unable to get over. The original just IS the original and the copy is a copy, I can't explain why I believe this so strongly, I just do.
Well this has certainly been an interesting discussion, but it's clear neither of us is going to budge on this point so in fear of creating a page long essay I'd say we call it quits.
But on an semi-related note, selfishness and being disrespectful is not inherently immoral IMO. I mean you could refuse to share a chocolate bar with someone, which would be selfish, but certainly not immoral. Just as you could not take your hat off at a funeral, again, disrespectful but not immoral. I'd say that would be bad manners as opposed to being immoral.
Reply
In the question I put to you the person had died, and was effectively being resurrected by means of extreme repairing and a reboot of the mind. I added the idea that maybe they need to reinstall the mind because by that point it's basically exactly the same as cloning. In the example I gave they need millions of cells, in cloning just the one. Hyper efficient repairing then, really.
This feels a bit like arguing with religious people about the existence of a god. People generally aren't much keen on budging on their beliefs, and to an extent it's understandable. Probably best we stop now, yeah, last time I had this sort of argument it certainly did not make me a popular guy. At all XD
And on the final point, I'd say that unless there are reasons for those choices other than selfishness for the sake of selfishness and disrespect for the sake of disrespect then they are both immoral. Only slightly immoral, but immoral nonetheless. Immoral does often sound a bit strong though, so I know what you mean.
Reply
Leave a comment