you're right, sorry
I agree with everyone!
but I also think that anything that benefits society as a whole is morally acceptable and justified. (Still sucks for the one getting shafted by society though)

^ that was my last comment
seriously though, research is where it is at!
(I am a Biomedical Engineer)

"So if you kill every single cell of a person but one, then replicate it and clone it, that is not murder?"

Yes, it is, because human cells can't survive on their own. They're specialized. Specialized, I might add, so that no one cell expresses a person's entire genome, but rather that some is methylated and isn't expressed.

"this was supposed to be about DONATIONS. Why the hell are you talking about the philosophy of murder?"

Because this is the WebDiplomacy Forum, and we get on huge, epic, tangents all the time. You should know this.

LordVipor -- "anything that benefits society as a whole is morally acceptable"....Uh...read a history book before you make such statements. The Nazis are known for some interesting live medical experiments which could have benefited humanity as a whole. Do you support the work of Josef Mengele? You need to be careful with your carefree statements. They sound very intellectual and all, but fail the stink test.

I believe that a tangent doesn't exactly touch the circle at a single point.

"I believe that a tangent doesn't exactly touch the circle at a single point."

You would be wrong.

AND.....every time we bump the discussion with our wide-ranging discussions, your request for donations moves to the top.

EVERYONE - just as a reminder, please strongly consider the original intent of this discussion, which is to raise funds for cancer research for a Diplomacy brother! Good cause! :)

By definition a tangent touches a circle at exactly one point...it isn't even arguable...not even philosophically...

You're right, my statement was lazy and incomplete.
It should benefit society a sufficient amount to be deemed morally acceptable.
If you can sit people down, explain the situation and have them vote on the morality of the act, and more than 50% vote yes, then it is acceptable in the eyes of society.
Does that sound okay?
p.s.This supposes that morals are there to benefit society...

Yay! It worked!

@superman98: No, of course I do not want "thousands, maybe millions of people to die from this disease every freaking month." However, the ends do not justify the means, and I will not donate to support embryonic stem cell research.

@krellin: Genetic research is mentioned on the left sidebar, on the op's link: "...directly involved in all stages of cancer research, from genetics through to drug development." (And I share your position on IVF as well, though that's a bit tangental.)

@rlumley: Yes, I'm aware that genetic research does not necessarily mean stem cell research, and that stem cell research does not necessarily mean embryonic stem cell research. I'm not going to do my own research to find out what kinds are done by this particular charity. I don't know how they roll in the U.K., but if this were a U.S. charity, they'd not advertise embryonic stem cell research on the home page if they were engaged in it.

@superman98: krellin later said, "And yes - I will donate once I verify that this is not embryonic research."
Me too, if he (or you, or someone) verifies it. PM me if a reliable link is found, in case I lose track of this thread.

@LordVipor:

Yeah. That's what we need. Morality as dictated at the whim of the masses. Where do we sign up? That way? OK. *Runs in the opposite direction*

@LordVipor - I still disagree with your logic in defining morality. there have been plenty of examples over the course of history in which a clearly immoral act was deemed acceptable by the population at large, either through inaction or through the argument of personal benefit. Two examples: Nazi Germany and the attempted extermination of the Jews (though you can argue that the public at large was unaware, to which I would argue that the public was intentionally ignorant of the regime) and slavery - not just in the US's history, but throughout history as a whole. Clearly slavery is immoral, but by your argument as long as 50.1% of the population agrees that slavery is OK then it is morally acceptable?? No....I don't think so. Evil rulers and a complicit media can easily persuade a population into immorality because, sadly, populations tend to be ignorant and lazy and go with the flow. case in point: We elected Obama!

g'night all...

It's not about what we need, its about how it is now...
If people didn't agree on (most) morals, there would be no society
Laws (which guide and enforce morals) are passed at the whim of the masses

@krellin
Exactly, slavery is immoral now because we all agree that it is immoral. But it was seen as completely acceptable by many at the time, hence it was okay and people did it.
People generally will do what is best for them even to the detriment of others.
and goodnight

I am not arguing about what is right or wrong, I am just saying that morality is about what is right and wrong to society.
If there is a universal objective morality, what are the rules and why don't we follow them?

in summation:

personally, I like the definition of morality as: whats wrong for you is wrong for me, and whats right for you is right for me
but this gets into a whole socialist thing

LordVipor, you're hijacking my troll with another troll. I'll bite. :-)

A more nuanced, polite natural law argument could be made as a counterpoint to your moral relativism, but I don't have the energy right now, so I'll just ask a (somewhat) rhetorical question, given your definition of morality just stated.

If I claim it's perfectly fine and dandy according to my personal moral code to punch people in the face whenever I feel like it, and that anyone can punch me in the face too (that's just fine with me), on what grounds would you tell me I shouldn't punch you in the face?

Another question. Isn't saying you won't donate to a Cancer Center that does genetic research the same as saying you won't donate to any Red Cross that is collecting blood?

@Krellin

"Evil rulers and a complicit media can easily persuade a population into immorality because, sadly, populations tend to be ignorant and lazy and go with the flow. case in point: We elected Obama!"

Are you suggesting McCain would not have been an evil ruler, or that the entire system is broken?

Oh, and what I should have started with:

You have my condolences, superman. I've made a small (but, hopefully, helpful) donation for your cousin.

I'm sorry, but the use of embryos from abortions for embryonic stem cell research is about as objectionable as saving lives with organs from people that die in car accidents. Seriously. Think about it. 1) It's not like the embryos are going to do anything otherwise but be incinerated or rot in a landfill, 2) it will save lives, 3) it's not like it's going to encourage people to get abortions - nor would such an abortion for that purpose be legal - just as you don't kill someone to get their organs - despite the Monty Python skit to the contrary.

How about this: pregnant woman dies in emergency room after car crash... any objection to using her organs for donation? ...any objection to using the embryonic tissue for stem cell research? (obviously, in either case, with the permission of the next of kin)

Superman, you have my commiserations. I, for my part, frequently donate to cancer charities in the UK.

Regarding the “murder of an embryo” question, one has to ask why we actually consider humans to have a right to life. Is it not because we have the ability to think, to feel, to love, to create, to learn, to discover? If so, why would we limit the potential we have to discover something so important for the sake of a fundamentally unthinking, unfeeling, unloving, uncreative embryo? It makes no sense.

@superman98, you and your family have my sympathies and best wishes. I already give. ...and everyone should give to their charity of choice (both money *and* time/effort). The world is a better place when we all lend a hand.

@ MKE
I think personal moral codes are more of a guideline for how you should treat others
and since personal moral codes can vary wildly between individuals, we have created a system of laws to define our morals for us, based loosely on the personal moral codes most people agree on, which imho are based on emotional instincts and intuitions that aided in survival and reproduction.

Does anyone argue that wolves, chimps, gorillas, coyotes, dolphins, etc... (mammals that live in complex social groups) do not have morals?

I am really sorry to hear about your cousin superman88. I'll be making a donation shortly (probably to an Australian organization though, but I'll check out the link you posted).

thanks everybody :)

http://www.justgiving.com/cancer-help

Does anyone argue that wolves, chimps, gorillas, coyotes, dolphins, etc... (mammals that live in complex social groups) do not have morals?

Yes?

I might argue that, as they faded, and we became more logical, our instincts became "morality" - instincts that exist to serve the survival of the species, ie. don't kill humans, but killing animals for food is perfectly fine.

If you accept that premise (I'm not sure I do, but it's at least a valid theory) then you could argue that all animals which have a social instinct (Read: Most animals, if not all) have a version of morality.

"guys guys guys,

this was supposed to be about DONATIONS. Why the hell are you talking about the philosophy of murder? "

ROFLROFLROFLROFL This is why I love webdip, lol!

Well, on topic: I'm not giving via Just Giving. Partially because I think their cut is far too great and also because I as much as I can anyway to charities of my choice.