An issue addressed quite clearly in episodes 7 and 8 are the concepts of creating multiple, distinct entities to represent you and the relationship between protecting the mind through organ replacement vs transition to a prosthetic body. We'll be starting with the latter since it's a bit simpler, but first, the summaries:
Episode 7:
The team is assigned the task of investigating the activities of a foreign revolutionary mascot who makes a trip to Japan once about every 5 months and has purportedly survived several assassination attempts. After tracking the man from a meeting to a warehouse, they discovered several robotic replications of him. It wasn't until they entered the core of the facility that they discovered the man himself, deceased and plugged into a device that made weak copies of his frozen consciousness and stored them into android doppelgangers.
Episode 8:
After an organic heart is illegally transplanted into a 6-year-old girl from the previous body of someone entering into a prosthetic body, the team is responsible for finding the responsible party. At first, they begin investigating a company that grows human organs within pigs using DNA from both (thinking that a mole might have been harvesting the organs to sell them), they find that the payments for the organs had been tampered with in the system. Later, they stumble upon the perpetrators in the act of acquiring organs, and it turns out to be a group of Robin Hood Med Students intent on stealing the organs and selling them cheaply to those who can't afford them. They track them to a warehouse district and capture them, along with a large collection of contraband organs.
While we've already discussed the notion of moving oneself into a prosthetic body in the first post, there is still the matter of breeding one's human organs in an alternate body for extraction if need be. While it is obvious that this would be an enormous leap forward in healthcare possibilities, it is also important to assert that this would only be moral if there was some means of developing such organs in a body that did NOT belong to an actual human being. If we got to the point where we were breeding humans to use them as objects and treat them as property to be slain at one's whim, we would be re-entering debates on the concept of slavery which is already considered to be morally reprehensible by the developed nations of today. Is there some sense in which manufacturing our own variations of God's creation for our own repurposing could be seen as sinful or an act against God's wishes? In this case, I think not, as we would simply claim that the essence of God's intent for the form of man is maintained during the process of organ transplant. So long as the process does not entail taking advantage of another human life, harming it, or potentially condemning it in some other abstract manner, the act remains pure. Repurposing ourselves for general self-improvement is more questionable, and was already addressed in the first post.
Now, to address the topic of clones, both organic and inorganic. Concerning organic clones, we must first define in what ways these clones would be used and the extent to which they would be sentient. If a clone was designed for medicinal usage, it would be more akin to the scenario concerning organ growth, which, we already clarified was sinful usage. Even if such organic clones were designed to lack sentience, it would still be in violation of a potential human soul or spirit's ability to have interactivity or understanding of its environment. Because of this, the mere act of designing an organic clone lacking the same level of sentience as an actual human would be an abuse of the human existence since the new life would be a human intentionally diminished in form from the "ideal" image God expects us to aim for. It would be akin to an art student intentionally sabotaging the teacher's personal project when asked to look after it. Humans are entrusted with the human body and therefore have a responsibility to ensure its continued, positive condition. Such conditions are designated as those which provide the tools necessary for the life of the individual to have a stable existence similar to the lives of other humans, in as good a quality as possible.
If organic clones were designed to be literal copies of the individual, it wouldn't exactly be sinful, so long as it was treated the same way as an individual who just gave birth to a child. We can determine that it would be wrong to grow a clone with accelerated growth or already existing at a particular age because it would contradict the "stable existence similar to the lives of other humans" part of our definition. As long as an unmodified clone was treated like a new life of its own, it would be a valid way of giving birth to a human (though potentially less "authentic").
Back to the topic of inorganic clones, i.e. androids. We'll mostly have to contend with whether or not a person's consciousness will actually be present within the clones. If it is a surrogate android, the principles applying to it are treated much like prosthetic body usage. Someone is simply living their own life through an alternative shell. In this case, the android in question wouldn't even be a spiritual clone since it would share the same consciousness. It would merely be a physical clone due to the ability of the individual to switch between the original body and the other body/bodies.
If someone truly had independent inorganic clones, either by replicating their consciousness (if that were even possible) and putting it into the empty mind of an android (with a spirit) or by designing AIs that simulated the behavior that they would normally exhibit (without a spirit), such an act would usually fall under the realm of deception as the person wouldn't be portraying themselves as they truly are. Even if such AIs periodically reported their experiences and acquired knowledge to the original being, this contradiction still applies (unless the notion of their usage became ubiquitous and there was a means of identifying such androids easily). When it gets interesting is if, in the former case, people found a method of using multiple consciousnesses as a means of living independently with the sole purpose of rejoining the consciousnesses and pooling their experiences together later on. In that sense, the people would be able to legitimately say they are the person in question because later on the essence of that person would eventually become aware of the experiences. At that point, the person has entered the realm of human advancement to where their existence is similar to that of a prosthetic body, though in the plural. The sense of "self" is perceived through a collective whereby the collective itself becomes a single entity to be recognized as the prosthetic body. Combined with the power of the Internet, and these devices could be universally synced up so that they operate in unison with one another, processing all of their experiences simultaneously (since each is an independent consciousness). Furthermore, if an organic variation of that state were to be possible, it would be the same as the prosthetic body scenario (elaborated on in the first post) only if human lives were not sacrificed in the process of its development.
All in all, the concept of having clones and/or growing clones must be framed with an understanding that
1) Any organic human with a life must be attributed the same rights any other human would be.
2) Having clones is morally limited in that one must not deceive others into thinking they are interacting with the actual person as opposed to a robot.
3) Any attempt by an individual to live as multiple entities tied together into a single mind would be similar enough to the existence of a single prosthetic body that its characterization has already been addressed previously.
No comments:
Post a Comment