I Have an Interesting Moral Question

[Aramis Night]

This is a colossal waste of my clone army. Given how we have people going hungry, an altruistic alternative would be cloning them as food to feed the hungry. See, us villains can be altruistic too. Then we can free cows and chickens, because once you have tried human flesh, you wont even care about bacon anymore(pigs go free too), or so I hear... And then I can move onto a more advanced, cow, chicken, and pig army to replace my clones. And I can keep using cloning technology to replicate new bodies for myself to replace me when killed by homicidal hero types. Just have to make sure I don't mix up my clones with the food clones. What could go wrong?

 

[RedDeadFred]

Even if it wasn't free thinking, I wouldn't subject a living thing to pain and mind control simply for sport.

This really wasn't a challenging question at all.

 

[Tropicaz]

possibly free-thinking clones

This is the tipping point for me, along with pain. If they have active nociception (as they would if they were clones) and were free-thinking, I have no right to get them to do that. It's the equivalent of just rounding up homeless people to fight each other.

 

[Tenkage]

depends on the clones, are they just puppets who have no brain or will to live (like they don't want to eat) if so a little gray but I would be ok, if they can think for themselves, feel fear, and can show emotions, then yeah thats not right.

 

[mechalynx]

Nope. For one, like others before me said, it'd be slavery. But also because if I got my hands on a clone of myself, it would never get in a harm's way if I could prevent it. It'd be kept around for gigles and cuddles and stuff. And I'd finally have someone to play co-op games with.

 

[Adventurer2626]

Nope! Nope! NOPE! If this came to pass chances are that the people of the time would accept this horrendous practice as status quo (see Roman era slavery, coliseum games, etc.). Probably think of the clones as subhuman throwaways. So a decent (if somewhat done by now) movie premise but not something I'd want to see happen EVER. Humanity has an amazing track record of being "inhuman."

Counter-posit: Are the polygonal/pixelated images we already play with alive? Do they think or feel? Just because we control them doesn't mean they don't have a perception of their world. Many people think God (or something) controls us and our universe in much the same way. We don't have proof but we suspect or believe it. Might it not be the same for them? Knowing everything from our world we would realize immediately if we were transported to a game. But what if you were born in it? What if that was all you knew? They aren't what we consider life but they are made of matter and energy just the same as us. We are constructs of molecules, they are constructs of light and information. What about characters in movies? Comics? Books? They aren't mobile, conscious, macrocellular colonies like us but they do exist in reality in one place: your mind. The little blips of electricity between your neurons. Just how fictional are these worlds we create? Where does one draw the line between fantasy and reality?

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I can't see why we would. For resolution? AI? At the point where we're cloning crowds of people so cheaply that those resources are part of the standard running cost of a videogame, I think we'd have the technology to get virtual reality that's just as good, without the moral issues and mess. Besides, no room for aesthetic quirkiness.

 

[VoidWanderer]

Picture this, if you will: it's sometime in the future. Instead of computer-generated digital characters, gamers now control clones in their games. Blood-filled, possibly free-thinking clones that could be made based on anyone. Games that would be compatible with them include:

Shooters
Racers
Fighters
Sports

Now the question is where would you stand on this hypothetical practice?

For, me I have no idea.

Edit: I have to concede, I had no I no idea how to phrase the question and ended up with a shitty thread as a result. Guess I should have thought about it more. Sorry.

Has someone watched 'Gamer'?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I don't get the scenario. Are these "blood-filled, possibly free-thinking clones" inside the game? Are they part of a virtual reality? How can they be blood-filled or free-thinking if they're just code in a disk? Or is this about the idea that we could use surrogate bodies to do whatever, like that movie?

 

[EyeReaper]

Picture this, if you will: it's sometime in the future. Instead of computer-generated digital characters, gamers now control clones in their games. Blood-filled, possibly free-thinking clones that could be made based on anyone. Games that would be compatible with them include:

Shooters
Racers
Fighters
Sports

What, that's it? are the other games still played normally? like rpgs, or dating sims?
I can't say I can agree with this. Unless say, the clones undergo degeneration and have 24 hour lifespans, so they're going to die soon anyways, or if they volunteer themselves.

I think the real question about clones is: If you have sex with your clone, is that incest or just masturbation?

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Largely depends on 2 factors:

Are they actually free thinking?

Are they capable of experiencing pain and discomfort, be it physical or emotional?

If the answer to either of those is yes, I would be against it.

However, if they were simply meat sacks with only the brain power to move limbs, I give it a chance.

The REAL question is this: How much are the sex-clones and can I get one of me?

 

[Storm Dragon]

Why are people even doing this in this hypothetical scenario? Seems to me that it would be a lot more expensive and harder to maintain than digital environments and characters.