quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I guess this isn't really an argument per se but I'm not in favour of anything unatural.

what have you got against plastic?

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

I think genetic engineering is cool

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Theres not much sense in arguing something that isn't practical.

Actually, there is. If we can deduce from pure reason that creation of fully operative human clones is to be avoided, then we can decide not to use resources in pursuit of this goal. Likewise, if we come up with a great reason to do it, we can increase funding for research in cloning-related activities.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I guess this isn't really an argument per se but I'm not in favour of anything unatural. Seems pretty creepy. Plus, I'm sure it would suck to have no parents/family tree whatsoever (assuming we would be capable of cloning an entire human). It would be kind of like forced orphanage.

I can't really comment on your non-argument, as I know of no decent definition of "unnatural", but the part about clones not having any real parents I don't really see as a problem: Adopted kids get by ok, and as for the family tree, the clone could be listed as a sibling of the original, with all the genetics matching up.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z What's the point of cloning anyways? (other than perhaps cloning body parts for transplant, but even that a freaky concept to me). What are your views Trancaholic?

I don't really have any exciting opinions on the matter. It was just that the daily Dilbert featured a conversation, which pretty much suggested that there was no real moral objections towards human cloning - only those of political correctness/dogma. As my experience is that the public outcry, which advances in cloning almost always causes, is illogical and lacking in reason, I just wanted to know if there was any truth to the Dilbert strip. Hence the thread.
Personally, I'm somewhere around occrider's position: I don't see any ethical problems in creation of a clone - but I don't see any purpose in doing so, except ethically undefensible ones.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish I think this is one of the issue which will start to expose the fact that we are actually just a product of our parts nothing more. And that our high level interactions, relationships and so on, are simply caused by low level interactions (between molecules and so on downwards). Because in reality our "morals" are just a form of programming which some (all people?) people can ignore in the face of the correct situation.

While I agree to an extent that our morals are basically random values, that objectively speaking are just as right or wrong as any other set of values, I think that some of them have rational justifications. Kant's categorical imperative leaves room for taking on morals because their negation implies detoriation of society. "Murder is bad", for instance, is rationally preferred to its negation, since the negation would most likely lead to the destruction of human society.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 ... You may also end up with an excess population of a particular undesireable group of people (egomaniacs come to mind as first people who would want to have more copies of themselves around, something most other people wouldn't really agree with).

Your first point (on genetic diversity) is a good one, although I do think that it's a "slippery slope" kind of argument, that wouldn't obviously apply to the individual case, but only to extreme usage of the technology. This other point, about egomaniacs copying themselves: Would they? I would imagine that the egomaniac would prefer to be the only "great" guy, and not diminish his status by creating a clone of himself? It might be true that he thinks that society would be better off by having a lot of his kind around (the Hitler route), but then his act would be made for the benefit of other people only - unlikely behaviour for an egomaniac.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T what have you got against plastic?

It's evil and it's destroying the planet!

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Your first point (on genetic diversity) is a good one, although I do think that it's a "slippery slope" kind of argument, that wouldn't obviously apply to the individual case, but only to extreme usage of the technology. This other point, about egomaniacs copying themselves: Would they? I would imagine that the egomaniac would prefer to be the only "great" guy, and not diminish his status by creating a clone of himself? It might be true that he thinks that society would be better off by having a lot of his kind around (the Hitler route), but then his act would be made for the benefit of other people only - unlikely behaviour for an egomaniac.

Well, altruistic egomaniacs then

Basically I'm saying that a small selected group of people might feel the need to have a great number of copies of themselves around, although their clones might be unnecessarry, or even harmful to the society. Say if you allow cloning without restrictions, and an idiot with an iq of 80 decides that he wants 100 copies of himself to roam around. Now who in this world aside from that one particular idiot would want such a thing?

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Can anyone come up with a non-religious argument for why it is morally wrong to clone a consenting human?

Easy... the first people to have this luxury will be the most wealthy...

Which means:

A CLONE OF:

Michael Jackson
Paris Hilton
George Bush

I think those 3 clones are good enough arguments for why it's morally wrong to clone a human being!

___________________
lance

My sister came up with an argument, and I thought I'd leave it here for completion: Cloning a person opens up the possibility for deception/identity theft. Furthermore, it could mean the end for DNA-analysis as damning evidence in courts of law.