4 ms·

> it is immoral to create something sentient which has not been created by natural processes I disagree on two parts: 1. I think it’s immoral to oppose the cr

by dqpb 6y ago

> it is immoral to create something sentient which has not been created by natural processes I disagree on two parts: 1. I think it’s immoral to oppose the creation of sentient beings. 2. If we create sentient beings, those beings will have been created by a natural process, because we (and our actions) are natural processes.

deertick1 6y ago
Interesting points. Personally, not sure I agree with 1. Lots of scenarios where creating a sentient being would be bad - like if that being can only experience endless pain. On point 2 : well you got me there. Let me be more precise : its not the "natural processes" part that is important, but my point was rather that this type of hybridizing results in the creation of organisms which have not been time tested and weathered the refining pressures of evolution. We have no gaurantees of the probabability of a successful organism - could be, as I said, some fucked up abomination which only exists to plead for death. Quite tragic in my view if this is the outcome. I just think we'd better not even go there.
- dqpb 6y ago
  Both of your objections are true for natural evolution. > “time tested and weathered the refining pressures of evolution” Those refining pressures are not kind or gentle.
  - deertick1 6y ago
    Sure, but we can't stop those processes. We can stop ourselves from being unkind, though
- maroonblazer 6y ago
  > We have no gaurantees of the probabability of a successful organism - could be, as I said, some fucked up abomination which only exists to plead for death. Although I think this is unlikely, let's accept it as true for the sake of argument. Eventually I think it's fair to presume we'd come to understand which variations of the process produce your 'abomination' and solve that problem, such that we go on to produce many, many more organisms that don't suffer this same experience. Would this not be a better outcome than 'not even going there'?
  - deertick1 6y ago
    Personally, I think it would not be a better outcome, no. What would be the point of creating new species? Sow more division and war and violence. I just dont see it turning out well. Inherently humans would be the "creators" of the other species. Sounds like a recipe for some horrible problems with speciesm.
    - maroonblazer 6y ago
      > What would be the point of creating new species? I've not given it a lot of thought but off the top of my head: Imagine a monkey or ape that possesses above-average (for an ape) intelligence that could be a home-health assistant, taking care of an elderly person who wishes to maintain some independence and not move into a nursing home. Or a disabled adult who needs special care throughout the day. Speciesism seems a remote risk when you consider the fact that our moral circle of concern has only widened across history.
- catlifeonmars 6y ago
  Just to be clear about what evolution optimizes for: It’s propagation of genetic information. Evolution is not kind. And evolution doesn’t optimize for happiness or even health beyond reproductive. Evolution has produced plenty of humans who plead for death. We treat it as a disorder and try to fix it. I’m wholeheartedly on board with (1) not creating more suffering and (2) reducing suffering. However I’m not convinced that evolution does better on either of those two fronts than empathetic humans.
em-bee 6y ago
the common definition of a natural process is one that happens without human intervention. you are applying a different definition that is problematic. by your definition murder could be considered natural
- dqpb 6y ago
  Murder is natural. I never said everything natural is good. I merely said that everything is natural.
  - em-bee 6y ago
    uhm, bringing up natural as an argument in defense of the creation of sentient beings heavily implies that you consider everything natural as good. since we obviously agree that murder is not good, and you also agree that not everything natural (by your definition of natural) is good either, using natural in support of your argument no longer works. this doesn't invalidate your argument. we can still discuss whether creating sentient beings is acceptable or not. just arguing whether it is natural or not does not help us here
- 0_gravitas 6y ago
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural only one sub-item of these fifteen definitions of natural say "no human intervention". Lets look at the definition for nature: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature Definition 2b is succint: "an inner force (such as instinct, appetite, desire) or the sum of such forces in an individual" According to this, murder is in fact quite natural. I don't like arguments about definitions, because they're a cheap way out: "x is (not) bad because its y"; they also force discussions about all the wrong things, ignoring the core of what both parties care about regarding the issue.
  - em-bee 6y ago
    I don't like arguments about definitions i agree. i do however like to clarify definitions so that we all know what we mean. i am quite happy to continue the discussion with OPs definition of natural, because now that we understand what that definition is we can get back to the actual core of the issue.
jerry1979 6y ago
For the purposes of moral evaluation, why would you say that our actions fall into the "natural process" bucket? I would place our actions in the "unnatural process" bucket because our actions involve unnatural language which comes from a combination of intention, objectivity, and abstraction.
- deertick1 6y ago
  What is unnatural about the behaviour of humans. From a purely deterministic point of view, I totally see his point honestly. Ive often thought that the dichitomy between human action and natural processes is a false one.
  - jerry1979 6y ago
    > What is unnatural about the behaviour of humans. If we define "natural" to mean "things that happen", then sure, I would see no difference between natural things and human things. But we use the word "natural" to separate some of our actions from the actions of animals. I think we could come up with a list of things that people do that animals don't do. Looking at actions from the standpoint of culpability, intentionality, objectivity, language, and planning might shed some light on what actions we would consider "natural". For example, feeling attracted to another person would fall under the "natural" category because we would not consider ourselves "culpable" or "use intention" for such an action. Another example: desire paths made by humans in the grass would probably fall under the "natural" category because people do not plan the paths with language or use objectivity to create the paths. We simply walk "mindlessly" and the paths spring up from under our feet. Another example: asking a stranger for directions would fall under the category of "unnatural" because we need to use language and an objective view of the world around us to engage with another person to share information.
    - 0_gravitas 6y ago
      Stealing from another response: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural only one sub-item of these fifteen definitions of "natural" mentions a difference between human vs non-human. Lets look at the definition for nature: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature Definition 2b is succint: "an inner force (such as instinct, appetite, desire) or the sum of such forces in an individual" According to this, of course, something like murder is quite natural. Is the stranger giving you directions not following that "nature" within which makes him help you for nothing in return? Is your request for help not a natural thing? Ultimately, I don't like arguments about definitions, because I think they're a cheap way out: "x is (not) bad because its y"; they also force discussions about all the wrong things, ignoring the core of what both parties care about regarding the issue.

by dqpb 6y ago

deertick1 6y ago

Interesting points. Personally, not sure I agree with 1. Lots of scenarios where creating a sentient being would be bad - like if that being can only experience endless pain. On point 2 : well you got me there. Let me be more precise : its not the "natural processes" part that is important, but my point was rather that this type of hybridizing results in the creation of organisms which have not been time tested and weathered the refining pressures of evolution. We have no gaurantees of the probabability of a successful organism - could be, as I said, some fucked up abomination which only exists to plead for death. Quite tragic in my view if this is the outcome. I just think we'd better not even go there.

dqpb 6y ago
Both of your objections are true for natural evolution. > “time tested and weathered the refining pressures of evolution” Those refining pressures are not kind or gentle.
- deertick1 6y ago
  Sure, but we can't stop those processes. We can stop ourselves from being unkind, though
maroonblazer 6y ago
> We have no gaurantees of the probabability of a successful organism - could be, as I said, some fucked up abomination which only exists to plead for death. Although I think this is unlikely, let's accept it as true for the sake of argument. Eventually I think it's fair to presume we'd come to understand which variations of the process produce your 'abomination' and solve that problem, such that we go on to produce many, many more organisms that don't suffer this same experience. Would this not be a better outcome than 'not even going there'?
- deertick1 6y ago
  Personally, I think it would not be a better outcome, no. What would be the point of creating new species? Sow more division and war and violence. I just dont see it turning out well. Inherently humans would be the "creators" of the other species. Sounds like a recipe for some horrible problems with speciesm.
  - maroonblazer 6y ago
    > What would be the point of creating new species? I've not given it a lot of thought but off the top of my head: Imagine a monkey or ape that possesses above-average (for an ape) intelligence that could be a home-health assistant, taking care of an elderly person who wishes to maintain some independence and not move into a nursing home. Or a disabled adult who needs special care throughout the day. Speciesism seems a remote risk when you consider the fact that our moral circle of concern has only widened across history.
catlifeonmars 6y ago
Just to be clear about what evolution optimizes for: It’s propagation of genetic information. Evolution is not kind. And evolution doesn’t optimize for happiness or even health beyond reproductive. Evolution has produced plenty of humans who plead for death. We treat it as a disorder and try to fix it. I’m wholeheartedly on board with (1) not creating more suffering and (2) reducing suffering. However I’m not convinced that evolution does better on either of those two fronts than empathetic humans.

em-bee 6y ago

the common definition of a natural process is one that happens without human intervention. you are applying a different definition that is problematic. by your definition murder could be considered natural

dqpb 6y ago
Murder is natural. I never said everything natural is good. I merely said that everything is natural.
- em-bee 6y ago
  uhm, bringing up natural as an argument in defense of the creation of sentient beings heavily implies that you consider everything natural as good. since we obviously agree that murder is not good, and you also agree that not everything natural (by your definition of natural) is good either, using natural in support of your argument no longer works. this doesn't invalidate your argument. we can still discuss whether creating sentient beings is acceptable or not. just arguing whether it is natural or not does not help us here
0_gravitas 6y ago
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural only one sub-item of these fifteen definitions of natural say "no human intervention". Lets look at the definition for nature: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature Definition 2b is succint: "an inner force (such as instinct, appetite, desire) or the sum of such forces in an individual" According to this, murder is in fact quite natural. I don't like arguments about definitions, because they're a cheap way out: "x is (not) bad because its y"; they also force discussions about all the wrong things, ignoring the core of what both parties care about regarding the issue.
- em-bee 6y ago
  I don't like arguments about definitions i agree. i do however like to clarify definitions so that we all know what we mean. i am quite happy to continue the discussion with OPs definition of natural, because now that we understand what that definition is we can get back to the actual core of the issue.

jerry1979 6y ago

For the purposes of moral evaluation, why would you say that our actions fall into the "natural process" bucket? I would place our actions in the "unnatural process" bucket because our actions involve unnatural language which comes from a combination of intention, objectivity, and abstraction.

deertick1 6y ago
What is unnatural about the behaviour of humans. From a purely deterministic point of view, I totally see his point honestly. Ive often thought that the dichitomy between human action and natural processes is a false one.
- jerry1979 6y ago
  > What is unnatural about the behaviour of humans. If we define "natural" to mean "things that happen", then sure, I would see no difference between natural things and human things. But we use the word "natural" to separate some of our actions from the actions of animals. I think we could come up with a list of things that people do that animals don't do. Looking at actions from the standpoint of culpability, intentionality, objectivity, language, and planning might shed some light on what actions we would consider "natural". For example, feeling attracted to another person would fall under the "natural" category because we would not consider ourselves "culpable" or "use intention" for such an action. Another example: desire paths made by humans in the grass would probably fall under the "natural" category because people do not plan the paths with language or use objectivity to create the paths. We simply walk "mindlessly" and the paths spring up from under our feet. Another example: asking a stranger for directions would fall under the category of "unnatural" because we need to use language and an objective view of the world around us to engage with another person to share information.
  - 0_gravitas 6y ago
    Stealing from another response: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural only one sub-item of these fifteen definitions of "natural" mentions a difference between human vs non-human. Lets look at the definition for nature: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature Definition 2b is succint: "an inner force (such as instinct, appetite, desire) or the sum of such forces in an individual" According to this, of course, something like murder is quite natural. Is the stranger giving you directions not following that "nature" within which makes him help you for nothing in return? Is your request for help not a natural thing? Ultimately, I don't like arguments about definitions, because I think they're a cheap way out: "x is (not) bad because its y"; they also force discussions about all the wrong things, ignoring the core of what both parties care about regarding the issue.