Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Stem cells made from 'dead' human embryo

"NEW YORK - Scientists say they have created a stem cell line from a human embryo that had stopped developing naturally, and so was considered dead. Using such embryos might ease ethical concerns about creating such cells, they suggested."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060923/ap_on_sc/stem_cells;_ylt=AlGatGV8OjmAfp1DAYj2mtLQOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NmhocGZ1BHNlYwMxNzAw

The ethical issues raised by stem cell research are not diminished under the guise of embryonic death.
While embryos may not have legal status they remain part of the human family. No doubt ethics will eventually accommodate this technology, and no doubt its effects will be judged beneficial. However, I perceive future generations will look upon the innovations of this age as simply barbaric.

Religion is not the only source of ethics, nor do the ethics derived therefrom supercede those derived from other sources.

If anything religion has proven one of the least reliable sources of ethics.

All major religions subscribe, in one form or another, to the concept of murder being wrong.

Can you find many that haven't practiced it regularly?

The notion of a "more" ethical way or a "less" ethical way - or a "right" and a "wrong " way are subjectively determined - roots firmly imbedded in the epic scriptual battles held between "good" and "evil."

Ethics are determined by the overriding spiritual praxis of the society at hand. Those societies professing a secular autonomy have ancestral links to belief systems that continue to influence in subtle but essential ways.

Pure reason would negate ethics on the basis that "right" and "wrong" are subjective criteria: without scientific basis in the natural world. An animal may kill indiscriminately but such actions are not "evil" in the context of the natural sciences. At most "aberrant" behaviour would be noted.

Humanity is but another branch on a phylogenic tree and has no superior status in the natural world. We are simply genetic material with a natural inclination to survive - common to all other species on Earth. In short, the qualities of "evil" and "good" are irrationally inspired concepts for humanity.

That we have ethics attached to science recognises the inherent danger in unbridled reason - reason without a spiritual foundation. Conversely however, we ought to agree that blind faith (belief without reasoned reflection) is also a grave concern - a situation that can easily be manipulated by the incarnated in evil, the irrationally inspired, or dare I say - the purely reasonable.

TU wrote:
"Pure reason would negate ethics on the basis that "right" and "wrong" are subjective criteria"

That is not what science has conclusively proven using game theory.

That is just the argument religious zealots use to scare the sheep they fleece into staying inside the fence.

Game Theory has proven no such thing.

Firstly, Game Theory does not assert morality is analogous to rational action or decision-making. Rationality does not assume a moral force or stance - it merely compels the agent to pursue their desires, as efficiently and maximally as possible. Morality within a game is justified only if a moral strategy is maximally beneficial. Thus within a game evil incarnate as strategy, is equally as valid as morality if the payoff is maximally beneficial to the player so bedevilled, or enlightened.

Also the theory assumes rational interactions between rational agents, under ideal circumstances ? it?s a model. The theory is underpinned by rational agency ? all players are rational and therefore will pursue their desires as efficiently and maximally as possible. The rational agent is assumed to be without race, class and gender ? disembodied, without character, and driven by self-interest ? seeking only maximum utility (greatest benefit to themselves).

Generally, it is thought that a moral stance will cause an agent to sacrifice their personal interests or aims. Prima facie, morality appears to run counter to rationality. However in ?Morals by Agreement (1986) Gauthier, using Game Theory, argues that our conceptions of rationality are misconceived. The aim of rationality ? to maximise self-interest ? does not in itself direct how this should be done. A direct quote from the posted link follows:

?In terms of the utility-maximizing conception of rationality which he has accepted until recently (Gauthier, forthcoming), Gauthier argues that the aim of maximizing utility does not mean that we should, at each decision point, maximize utility. Instead we should reason in ways which are utility maximizing.?


Game Theory applied to Ethics is still an emerging discipline. It has many detractors and many of its underlying tenets are challenged ie ?the rational agent.? However, Game Theory does provide a fascinating insight into strategic thinking under ideal conditions.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-ethics/


Interestingly, Game Theory is taught extensively in business schools throughout the world as it forms part of economic and market curricula. I recent study found 56% of MBAs (business school graduates) admitted to cheating within the previous year. Reasons given were that they thought others were doing it. Game Theory in action it would seem.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/15551798.htm

EU wrote:
"Game Theory has proven no such thing."

An education can be a wonderful thing.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/2000/00000007/F0020001/1157
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-ethics/
http://sl4.org/archive/0604/14660.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-evolutionary/
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10907
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

for others there is google.

I personally recommend the use of both.

DA Morgan

Education is a wonderful thing, It teaches us analytical thinking, you should try it sometime - it will help you immensely.

Actually, I need to apologise to DA Morgan. Tit for Tat is hardly worthy of me, or anyone wishing to engage in a meaningful debate. So I will desist from commenting to DA Morgan's comments unless they merit meaningful consideration.

And god forbid you wouldn't want to comment on multiple links that demonstrate that your statement:

"Game Theory has proven no such thing."

was incorrect.