4 ms·
> "Fixed" and "broken" are defined how the person wants to use his body, not by natural order of things. That's an interesting idea, but one which I have to di
by zeveb 11y ago
> "Fixed" and "broken" are defined how the person wants to use his body, not by natural order of things.
That's an interesting idea, but one which I have to disagree with. A person who wishes to be an amputee does not have a broken body because he has two arms and two legs, nor is his body fixed by severing one or more of them; rather, he has healthy limbs and a broken brain or mind, which may be fixable with particular forms of therapy, or not, but certainly not by destroying his healthy limbs.
> Otherwise, reaching immortality could be viewed as "breaking" perfectly functioning death mechanism.
From what I know of how people age and die it appears that death is the failure and that immortality, were it achievable, is the proper state.
- golergka 11y agoInteresting discussion. What's the definition of "fixed" and "broken" you're implicitly using in your argument?
- mreiland 11y agostop worrying about definitions, it's a question of intent and life satisfaction for people. What category someone on the internet wants to file that under is irrelevant.
- golergka 11y agoI don't really care about practical implications of such discussion. On the contrary, these definitions seem to be an interesting philosophical topic.
- zeveb 11y ago> What's the definition of "fixed" and "broken" you're implicitly using in your argument? Functionally according to its function. One's digestive organs are meant to digest; one's reproductive organs are meant to reproduce. Reproductive organs which can't reproduce are broken: fixing ones which are broken is indeed healthcare, while breaking ones which are fully-functioning is an elective procedure.
- golergka 11y agoBut "function" only exists for something that was created by intellectual being with a goal in mind. How can you define "function" for something that evolved naturally?
- zeveb 11y ago> But "function" only exists for something that was created by intellectual being with a goal in mind. That doesn't bother me, since I think it's pretty obvious that there must be a prime mover of some sort. > How can you define "function" for something that evolved naturally? What it does. A kidney filters blood (and performs some other functions as well): a kidney which doesn't filter blood is obviously unhealthy. A heart pumps blood: a heart which fails to pump blood is obviously unhealthy. Gonads produce reproductive cells and introduce them to sexual partners: a set of gonads which don't produce such cells, or fail to introduce them to sexual partners, is obviously unhealthy. At a higher level, an organism is a mechanism for propagating genes. An organism which propagates its genes fulfills its function; one which does not fails to fulfill its function (note that ensuring the propagation of one's relatives' similar genes can count as a partial fulfillment at least).