After pondering about ethics, it is nearly impossible to avoid concluding the uselessness and irrationality thereof. After all, the rules of morality don’t give us definite answer for every single action. Case in point, human cloning. Extremely practical in that science needs experiments and research subject. It could help solve genetic mysteries and create cures for syndromes cause by genetic defects. It could help create people with enhanced senses or abilities, once we know what each gene does. It is like copying a piece of program code for personal use and then fiddling with it to see how exactly it is supposed to work. After all, that is what we are, mere organic computers. And yet there are some pesky ‘pro-human’ activists that claim that human cloning and human experimentation are immoral, even if done to benefit the society more than just marginally. Researching the inner workings of DNA-strands is in accordance with categorical imperative, the Golden Rule and utilitarian views – after all, it benefits a lot more people than it harms, it can be considered a rule – everyone who is able should try to find out more about the fundamental workings of organisms such as humans, and I, personally, would like to be cloned if that means getting a chance at using that clone for my and/or others’ benefit. After all, cloning is pretty much harmless to the original organism. Low risk, high reward, small chances. As always, “There is no certainty, only opportunity.” Hence I do not understand the immorality of helping mankind, me included.
Overpopulation is another matter, though even mass murder can be explain morally. The lack of mass murder means the problem becomes bigger, thus causing a decline of living conditions for a huge amount of people (not everyone can be fed or housed, for instance). It could also ultimately lead to the demise of the human race as a whole, or at the very least, reboot the system quite thoroughly. In any case, it will get a lot worse before it can get any better. Mass murder, on the other hand, vacates room and resources to supply the ones still living. I am not talking about killing everyone, just enough to keep overpopulation under control – the fewer dead, the more often it has to be done. This way a large majority of human population benefit from the action while a minority lies down and dies. After death, they probably don’t really care about it anyways. It is also in accordance with the aforementioned categorical imperative as by causing mass murder, it is, in essence, trimming the fat of the human race. Anything that bulges over the edge, or the population limit, gets rid of, abolished, removed, expunged, eliminated, eradicated, exterminated! And keeping overpopulation under strict control can be willed to become a rule. And yet there are pesky ‘pro-human’ activists that claim mass murder is immoral, even if done to benefit the human society as a whole more than a little more than merely marginally.
A third example is the case of drug addicts being paid for not reproducing. It is yet another case of trimming the fat of humankind. The fewer people reproduce, the less the problem of overpopulation grows. Not to mention that this way the children of drug addicts will not become a nuisance for the society. Completely moral in the big picture. And yet there are… you know the drill.
For some reason we ‘know’ that human cloning is immoral, we ‘know’ mass murder is immoral, we ‘know’ that paying drug addicts for basically no work is immoral. But it cannot really be competently explained. Hence morality is an irrational beast that has arbitrary value. It is something we heed, although it is very often illogical and inexplicable. These are the situations where a person has to choose the road he walks, listen to the brain, or listen to the heart. Partly listening to both is extremely hypocritical.
I am not saying morality is bad, I am saying it fogs things up. It always has.
I am also not saying that we should all start killing each other randomly. I mean, an unorganized mass murder will do a lot more harm than an organized one, a strong dictatorship is always better than anarchy. And let’s not forget, the question has not been definitely been solved so no definitive action can be taken.
Seriously, don’t kill random people, especially not me. I’m serious.