Playing God

[Freedan]

So, what does "playing God" mean?

In a very general nutshell, I think most people would consider it as dabbling in areas we shouldn't.

Some people would say cloning is 'playing God'. Or genetic engineering. Or euthanasia. The biggest reason for that is likely because it involves choosing who lives or dies, or in the case of something like genetic engineering, can fundamentally change what something is.

My question is: where do you draw the line? What is "playing God", and what isn't?

Consider the following:

Suppose someone is against euthanasia, because choosing who lives or dies is playing God. These people would likely say that life is a gift from God, meant to end naturally.

Now, would these same people be against, say... sponsoring a starving child in Africa? The reasoning would be the same, would it not? We're choosing who lives and dies. We're interfering with the natural course of events. If euthanasia is playing God because life is supposed to end naturally (suffering through brain cancer be damned), isn't it God's will that these people die in abject squalor and poverty at the age of six?

Pretty much everything medical applies. Should we not treat the 10-year-old with Leukemia because God says they're supposed to die? Need surgery? Forget about it. That bad ticker of yours is natural, and replacing your heart would be playing God.

I think my stance on "playing God" is fairly clear; I think it's just another scare tactic designed to keep people from stepping in to new or controversial territory.

So what do you folks think? What counts as "playing God", and what doesn't? Where is the line drawn, and what's the difference?

[Yet One More Idiot]

Hmm, well, my personal opinion would be to treat them all, "playing god" be well and truly damned.

I don't believe in any gods; I also don't believe in pre-determinism (what I do believe in is the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, but that's another matter entirely).

But to those who do believe in God, I would like to say this - if I recall correctly, the Bible says "God helps those who help themselves", right? (Like that story about the man who refused to be rescued from a flood because he believed that God would save him, but God had sent those rescuers to save him, and because he turned them away he drowned). So surely that would mean he wants you to "play God", wouldn't it?

My (mis-)interpretation only.

[EverPhoenix]

i dont believe in the idea of 'playing god'. anything we can do with our current technology and morals is the product of our own minds, so its not playing god by doing what we ourselves designed.

[psychokind]

Freedan, the Dark Knight wrote:

I think my stance on "playing God" is fairly clear; I think it's just another scare tactic designed to keep people from stepping in to new or controversial territory.

Quote:

dont believe in the idea of 'playing god'. anything we can do with our current technology and morals is the product of our own minds, so its not playing god by doing what we ourselves designed.

that should be enough on that topic. I'd feel offended as a believer in god if somebody told me someone else is playing god. one can't "play" god.

[tay120n64]

psychokind wrote:

Freedan, the Dark Knight wrote: I think my stance on "playing God" is fairly clear; I think it's just another scare tactic designed to keep people from stepping in to new or controversial territory. Quote: dont believe in the idea of 'playing god'. anything we can do with our current technology and morals is the product of our own minds, so its not playing god by doing what we ourselves designed. that should be enough on that topic. I'd feel offended as a believer in god if somebody told me someone else is playing god. one can't "play" god.

Yeah, this is one of those "tread lightly" topics...

But they way I always look at issues like this is:

"If you have to draw a line, you've already crossed it."

[Jason Tandro]

God is the divine puppet-master if you will. I think the aspect of playing God comes in any area where we seek to control that which was not meant to be controlled, or attempt to give order or structure to that which is by nature meant to remain in entropy.

That means that an awful lot we do as humans falls under the subset of "playing god". The question is how do we discern what areas we are ethically obliged to take action and where we are obliged to avoid action at all cost.

[EverPhoenix]

Jason Tandro wrote:

God is the divine puppet-master if you will. I think the aspect of playing God comes in any area where we seek to control that which was not meant to be controlled, or attempt to give order or structure to that which is by nature meant to remain in entropy. That means that an awful lot we do as humans falls under the subset of "playing god". The question is how do we discern what areas we are ethically obliged to take action and where we are obliged to avoid action at all cost.

in the bold text lies the issue. we went into this argument in the cloning debate.

i think the major question is what aspects of our existence we werent meant to control, not the repercussions of doing so

[Jason Tandro]

Well frankly with several hundred thousand religions out there, the issues will never be definite. That's why the term "playing God" is one I tend to avoid, along with "common sense".

[Yet One More Idiot]

Personally I think there is nothing wrong with, as some people would put it "playing God" (probably 'cos I don't believe in God though). As long as our actions don't harm others, I don't see what's wrong with it.

My dad would disagree though; when watching medical dramas/soap operas/etc; he's repeatedly stated that he does not agree with surrogacy and IVF treatment because it is bringing child into being who weren't meant to exist. At the same time though, he does agree with blood and organ transplants, but surely that's almost the same thing, extending a life that wasn't "meant" to go on any longer?
(In short, I think his views on what counts as "playing God" are self-contradictory, but I don't argue the point with him 'cos it makes for a quieter life... )

[Jason Tandro]

Well every action we take affects those around us in some way, and it is difficult to measure what degree of effect our actions will have on those around us until after the fact.

For instance, let's take a look at abortion. Most pro-choice people believe that abortions harm nobody, but most pro-lifers believe that these women are killing a child.

With the issue of gay marriage, most supporters believe that this is harming nobody, but those against it say it's a threat to the institution of marriage.

With cloning, how do we know that we will not damage the existence of these clones by means of their creation, and frankly in the messed up world that we live in, these people could find themselves in a second-class citizen status.

[inferiare]

Jason Tandro wrote:

With cloning, how do we know that we will not damage the existence of these clones by means of their creation, and frankly in the messed up world that we live in, these people could find themselves in a second-class citizen status.

Funny enough, I'm reading Frankenstein right now for one of my classes. Funny you should mention that. The creature thinks of himself as an abomination, considering the way that he was made: parts from corpses and then life was put into him. While cloning isn't quite like that, it's still putting life into a lifeform that isn't quite made naturally. A clone of a human being could think of themselves that way too, if they found out they were cloned and made they way they were. From cloning you go genetically splicing species together (cats and rabbits being spliced together to make a cabbit, anyone?) and it wouldn't live long before it began to deteriorate and die. If that were to happen to a human and they lived through it, what would they think of themselves?

[Jason Tandro]

Yeah, we could have things like this:




But no, seriously. Think about how much trauma adopted children go trhough upon finding out their parents aren't their "real" parents. If that's a marker then what if they also found out that they weren't "real" humans?

This could happen:





I just sandwiched a valid point between two irrelevant jokes. I call that a logic sandwich.

[inferiare]

...I-I can't believe you used manbearpig. I think I love you more.

[Yet One More Idiot]

But you're saying that cloning is putting life into something that wasn't meant to be alive - how is that qualitatively different from IVF, fertilising eggs that just weren't meant originally to be fertilised? It's still making babies where, if the process had been carried out 100% naturally, they would not have been made.

[EverPhoenix]

mmmm logical sandwich