If it walks like a person, talks like a person, should you rape it?

[Unesh52]

Well then you don't get AI to act emotionally.

Then it wouldn't be the an appropriate substitute for the biological analogues. They would just be sex dolls, like the ones they sell in Japan already.

But reading all you wrote, it seems your underlying thesis is we shouldn't do it at all. Negating your original argument.

I'm not sure where you get that, but I'll go ahead and say that I'm perfectly comfortable (at the moment; my intuition tells me there are complicating factors that I'm waiting to be fully addressed, here hopefully) with the idea of making altered human clones that do not think or feel as using them as property.

Plus, you say if we experiment with the clones enough it will be fine, which will be easy while working with clones who have no rights. I have a hard time believing anyone will stand by while someone else says clones have no rights. I know I'll be one of the many fighting for clone rights.

This leads us right back on topic -- why would you be fighting for their rights when they're not even proper humans? If they (and I'm suggesting, for the sake of argument, that all of the following is true) cannot think independently, remember, feel pain, or otherwise display things that would define them as human aside from their biology, what makes them different than a potted plant?

Actually, I can see how, at one point, while the "kinks" were being worked out, we might end up experimenting with beings that maintain certain human attributes. There is a perfectly legitimate case for unethical experimentation there. I want to jump ahead and discuss hypothetically, as in the OP, the morality of creating these "human objects" after the process has been perfected, however that may have happened.

 

[BlackWidower]

Well then you don't get AI to act emotionally.

Then it wouldn't be the an appropriate substitute for the biological analogues. They would just be sex dolls, like the ones they sell in Japan already.

But reading all you wrote, it seems your underlying thesis is we shouldn't do it at all. Negating your original argument.

I'm not sure where you get that, but I'll go ahead and say that I'm perfectly comfortable (at the moment; my intuition tells me there are complicating factors that I'm waiting to be fully addressed, here hopefully) with the idea of making altered human clones that do not think or feel as using them as property.

Plus, you say if we experiment with the clones enough it will be fine, which will be easy while working with clones who have no rights. I have a hard time believing anyone will stand by while someone else says clones have no rights. I know I'll be one of the many fighting for clone rights.

This leads us right back on topic -- why would you be fighting for their rights when they're not even proper humans? If they (and I'm suggesting, for the sake of argument, that all of the following is true) cannot think independently, remember, feel pain, or otherwise display things that would define them as human aside from their biology, what makes them different than a potted plant?

Actually, I can see how, at one point, while the "kinks" were being worked out, we might end up experimenting with beings that maintain certain human attributes. There is a perfectly legitimate case for unethical experimentation there. I want to jump ahead and discuss hypothetically, as in the OP, the morality of creating these "human objects" after the process has been perfected, however that may have happened.

#1; Exactly, but in your proposition the clones have no emotions either. So this whole argument is kind of redundant.

#2; Since you argued how complicated it would be.

#3; Who the fuck are you to judge what a proper human is!? Is someone with Down Syndrome not a proper human because they are incapable of complex thought, you arrogant cu-!

I'm sorry, I'm sort of emotionally invested, I have family. But it has always happened in the past. One group judging themselves better by virtue of being and therefore treat others who are not like them as less than...or property.

Now I'm not accusing you of being a slave owner or Hitler. But I honestly can't see how what you are proposing is any different.

 

[Unesh52]

snip

Wait wait wait, this is going down a bad road. Firstly, The argument about the real possibility of the clones is interesting, but not the point, so I'll cede to your conclusion that androids would be more practical.

Now, as for me being an arrogant c word, I think I have the right do consider the limits of humanity, as does anyone else who considers himself a human. That's a big part of the idea I was bringing up in the first place -- what makes a person a person, when it comes right down to it? I feel like you're arguing against the straw man by bringing up people with Downs Syndrome. I honestly don't know the symptoms of that disorder, but I understand it affects mental capacity in some way. If that affliction was so severe as to leave the person with it without faculty of independent thought and memory, then I would say that yes, he is no longer a person. It's the same way I feel about people in permanent vegetative states. They've ceased to feel, think, or in any other way hold a consciousness, and isn't that what makes our lives significant? Consciousness? Self-awareness?

There's a difference between the genetic purification Hitler was aiming at and the creation of new life devoid of humanity I'm talking about.

 

[BlackWidower]

snip

Wait wait wait, this is going down a bad road. Firstly, The argument about the real possibility of the clones is interesting, but not the point, so I'll cede to your conclusion that androids would be more practical.

Now, as for me being an arrogant c word, I think I have the right do consider the limits of humanity, as does anyone else who considers himself a human. That's a big part of the idea I was bringing up in the first place -- what makes a person a person, when it comes right down to it? I feel like you're arguing against the straw man by bringing up people with Downs Syndrome. I honestly don't know the symptoms of that disorder, but I understand it affects mental capacity in some way. If that affliction was so severe as to leave the person with it without faculty of independent thought and memory, then I would say that yes, he is no longer a person. It's the same way I feel about people in permanent vegetative states. They've ceased to feel, think, or in any other way hold a consciousness, and isn't that what makes our lives significant? Consciousness? Self-awareness?

There's a difference between the genetic purification Hitler was aiming at and the creation of new life devoid of humanity I'm talking about.

You're right, I apologize. It's kind of an emotional argument and I've always hated those. But the truth is no one would ever go for something even close to what you're proposing, and it's likely they will find a way to make it illegal. There's the argument of exploitation, even though you can make the same argument about livestock...though raping livestock is also illegal.