Ethics and a genetically engineered slave race

The combination of watching Doctor Who DVDs and working on a sci-fi story has got me thinking about a hypothetical moral dilemma. On other boards, there've been debates about engineering sentient beings that would be happy to serve and whether or not this is ethically sound. The general consensus is usually that it isn't right.

This debate, however, is a bit different.

Let's say that such an engineered sentient being has already been created. Outwardly humanoid so they're physically capable of anything a human is, but their brains have been altered in such a way so as to make them incapable of any individuality or emotion. Their only purpose and pleasure in life is to serve you.

Society is quite comfortable with this situation and anyone who finds it objectionable has been drowned out by the majority. But then you, brilliant Homo sapien that you are, discover a way to trigger individuality and emotions in the engineered beings.

You can only do it one at a time and would need access to each one in order to do it; there will be no massive revolution. The "awakened" engineered beings will be completely aware of their plight and their current inability to find freedom for their race. They will go from taking their only pleasure in life from serving humans to being miserable. What they might do when they start reacting emotionally to that situation is unknown.

So. Is it ethical to start the process?

No. I cannot see the possible benefit to anybody.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Harlequin

No. I cannot see the possible benefit to anybody.

---

Well, I'm of two minds on this. One of the engineered beings might find benefit in being able to experience individuality and emotion, but then, it wouldn't be able to appreciate this until after already being given those abilities. This couldn't be justified as giving them what they want, since they'd lack desires without intervention.

On the other hand, they lack desires because of intervention, being an engineered race. By giving them emotions and individuality, you'd simply be giving them the means to make their own decisions, which shouldn't be a negative thing in itself, even if it might have negative consequences. They might suffer as a consequence of this, but people suffer simply by being alive. That doesn't justify failing to save someone's life, on the argument that death would lack suffering entirely.

One question, do they have some sort of characteristic that sets them apart after they have their newfound individuality and emotion? I mean something that would brand them as a servant and prevent them from doing something different. Because from your OP it seems like the lack of emotion/individuality is the only thing that sets them apart.

I could maybe see not doing if it meant that the servants were suddenly miserable, but still forced to perform with no way to change their own lot in life (putting aside for a moment the idea that many of them might want to free the rest of their own race). Otherwise, I don't see how you can not do it. Slavery is always wrong.

If somehow I manage to teach other people how to trigger emotions in the servants, couldn't we then build the numbers for a revolution? Any damage such a revolution might cause to society passes the test ethically, as far as I'm concerned. A society that would do that to human beings should fail.

So, someone is happy the way they are, and you make them unhappy by changing them, apparently without informed consent? I'm not seeing that as a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Taumpy Tearrs

One question, do they have some sort of characteristic that sets them apart after they have their newfound individuality and emotion? I mean something that would brand them as a servant and prevent them from doing something different. Because from your OP it seems like the lack of emotion/individuality is the only thing that sets them apart.

I could maybe see not doing if it meant that the servants were suddenly miserable, but still forced to perform with no way to change their own lot in life (putting aside for a moment the idea that many of them might want to free the rest of their own race). Otherwise, I don't see how you can not do it. Slavery is always wrong.

If somehow I manage to teach other people how to trigger emotions in the servants, couldn't we then build the numbers for a revolution? Any damage such a revolution might cause to society passes the test ethically, as far as I'm concerned. A society that would do that to human beings should fail.

---

I hadn't considered them looking any different from normal people, but lacking means of identification as anything other than an engineered being would be a drawback. Once given the ability to feel, they'd likely be able to pass themselves off as human, at least superficially. When asked about their parents, background, or for ID they'd be revealed for what they are, however, unless they became very good at hiding it.

I think the fact that these beings CAN be "awakened" is saying a lot. Is the awareness there and somehow masked, or is awakening them something that actually inserts the feelings?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 0ut0fMyHead

I think the fact that these beings CAN be "awakened" is saying a lot. Is the awareness there and somehow masked, or is awakening them something that actually inserts the feelings?

---

Let's say that the potential for individuality and emotion is there, but that it is unrealized and would always remain so under normal circumstances. Without the intervention of our intrepid hero/misguided villain they are incapable of recognizing that potential. Consider it to be along the lines of a chemical lobotomy in place since "birth."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oakminster

So, someone is happy the way they are, and you make them unhappy by changing them, apparently without informed consent? I'm not seeing that as a good thing.

---

I get what you're saying, and actually that's a pretty good point. Really, I see it as righting the wrong committed against them in the first place: taking away their humanity. But I'm probably projecting my own feelings onto them, so I'll have to rethink it.

I think Oakminster cuts right to the heart of the problem.

By enabling the beings to feel emotions and experience individuality, you're righting the original wrong done to them. However, as they have no frame of reference for what you're "fixing" and cannot give informed consent, you're essentially committing the exact same wrong.

I don't see how a wrong has been committed against them. They're happy the way they are.

It really does seem like either way you go is going to inflict someone else's will on these people.

Okay, I'll throw myself wholeheartedly into defending giving these hypothetical beings a sense of individuality, then.

First, I think it would do harm to the society that created and perpetuated that system. While ethics have developed over the centuries to the point where it's (thankfully) widely considered wrong to hold another human against his will and force him into labor, this would be finding a technological loophole to avoid the guilt and horror associated with such an act. By assuring ourselves that the slaves are happy to serve us, we numb our own sense of empathy. For our own good, I'd want to do whatever I could to stop the practice.

Second, a sapient being that had the potential for individuality and human-like emotion, even if it was lacking them initially, would be akin to a child suffering a developmental disorder. It would be, in my eyes, wrong to not attempt to seek out the being's full potential. This is an intelligent creature, which could be on par with a human, after all.

On preview: I agree with that, 0ut0fMyHead. Since the beings have been created to serve humans and desire to serve humans, they lack the ability to make decisions for themselves anyway. No matter what is done, it'll involve humans inflicting their will upon them. Better to inflict the desire for freedom on them than to continue exploitation.

If you think we should trigger self-awareness in these beings, how do you feel about the same thing in animals? If we could, should we make cows and dogs truly sentient and aware that they are mere kept beasts in a world of men?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Harlequin

If you think we should trigger self-awareness in these beings, how do you feel about the same thing in animals? If we could, should we make cows and dogs truly sentient and aware that they are mere kept beasts in a world of men?

---

If there was a simple way to grant such intelligence and awareness in animals, I'd be hard pressed not to support it. Then again, I could deal with cows telling me they don't want to be eaten. My cats as sapient beings would be terrifying, however. I shudder to think. So, let's restrict it to animals that aren't inherently evil.

Seriously, though, the hypothetical slaves are the result of human engineering and are intelligent to begin with, if lacking the drive for freedom and personal emotional responses. Perhaps, after being given individuality and emotions, they'd still want to serve and still find pleasure in what they've always done. Perhaps not. If there was some process that could drastically enhance the human cognitive experience, but had the potential to lead to dissatisfaction with ordinary life, I'd support that, too.

I think what this comes down to is whether you value happiness over freedom (and maybe, I dunno, complexity?)

On the one hand, you have blissful ignorance. Truly satisfied, happy beings providing, presumably, valuable services.

On the other, the complex and often miserable emotional life of humans.

Harlequin, you seem to be arguing that the later is inherently better than the former, and I suppose a case can be made for that, but I'm sure not all would agree, and there is no going back, right? If you gift these beings with complexity, you can't take it back? So that means you're screwing with their happiness because you personally believe your experience, with all its sadness and freedoms, is just better than theirs. But what if they don't agree?

It just seems rather presumptuous to me, rather like those who look down on others for enjoying lowbrow foods or entertainment. But if they like it, they like it. Happiness is good.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by renee

I think what this comes down to is whether you value happiness over freedom (and maybe, I dunno, complexity?)

On the one hand, you have blissful ignorance. Truly satisfied, happy beings providing, presumably, valuable services.

On the other, the complex and often miserable emotional life of humans.

Harlequin, you seem to be arguing that the later is inherently better than the former

---

No, I'm arguing more or less the opposite.

Oops, yes. It looks like renee accidentally attributed my position to Harlequinn.

I'm not sure if I'd say that the complexity of human emotion and individuality is better than the alternative, but that I'd feel compelled to give someone the means to reach that potential. A person with "lowbrow" interests who has no interest in anything "highbrow" is one thing. Someone with "lowbrow" interests who is denied access to or the ability to enjoy "highbrow" entertainments is different.

Sorry, Harlequin, for some reason I was associating Caerie's avatar with your name. Oops, indeed.

Someone has either been reading Aldous Huxley or should be.

Stranger

Virtually all of our domestic animals are "engineered" through generations of selective breeding to have traits that we humans considered desirable. Many of them are not capable of surviving in the wild without humans. So, as was asked upthread, should we give the "gift" of self-awareness to domestic turkeys? Teacup poodles? Race horses? It may, in fact, be more useful to address the question WRT creatures like these rather than some hypothetical creature drawn from human stock. As long as their is human genetic material involved, the question will always invovle whether the creature was denied its rightful hertitage as a human. When we deal with something like a race horse, we are getting a purer look at giving sentience to a creature that never would have had it under natural conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stranger On A Train

Someone has either been reading Aldous Huxley or should be.

Stranger

---

Hmmmmm. . . as I was considering similar premises, I didn't think of Huxley. I thought of Asimov's androids, who could be distinguished from true humans only by their lack of a belly button (at least I think this was Asimov!). I also thought of the androids in Bladerunner. I could even make a case for Kornbluth's Marching Morons, although that would be a bit of a stretch. I assume you're referring to Brave New World, and I guess I've forgotten elements of it that would be similar to this premise.

Overall, I think I'd have to agree with the position that these beings deserve to have their full potential made available to them. I'm not sure why, having been "awakened" and deciding they were happier before, they couldn't just return to their former existence, even with the awareness that they now possess individuality and emotions. They might have difficulty trying to pass as human, but who would challenge them if they tried to pass as themselves? For that matter, who would challenge a true human if he/she tried to pass as one of these beings?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MyOwnWorstEnemy

Overall, I think I'd have to agree with the position that these beings deserve to have their full potential made available to them. I'm not sure why, having been "awakened" and deciding they were happier before, they couldn't just return to their former existence, even with the awareness that they now possess individuality and emotions. They might have difficulty trying to pass as human, but who would challenge them if they tried to pass as themselves? For that matter, who would challenge a true human if he/she tried to pass as one of these beings?

---

Why do they "deserve" it? Why even bother?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

Why do they "deserve" it? Why even bother?

---

Does it make a difference that we're imagining in this circumstance that there is potential sitting unused, versus, say, altering an ox to somehow give it human-like intelligence? (Aside from the fact that that's not possible, of course . . . .)

I can't come up with a rational justification but my sort of immediate reaction is that it seems somehow wrong to leave a creature in ignorance, however blissful, if it means leaving some "potential" just sitting there locked up. Whereas deliberately making an ox capable of appreciating its conditions seems cruel and unnecessary.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Excalibre

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

Why do they "deserve" it? Why even bother?

---

Does it make a difference that we're imagining in this circumstance that there is potential sitting unused, versus, say, altering an ox to somehow give it human-like intelligence? (Aside from the fact that that's not possible, of course . . . .)

I can't come up with a rational justification but my sort of immediate reaction is that it seems somehow wrong to leave a creature in ignorance, however blissful, if it means leaving some "potential" just sitting there locked up. Whereas deliberately making an ox capable of appreciating its conditions seems cruel and unnecessary.

---

Well, if the humans have been genetically engineered to be of the same intelligence as an ox, then they really have no more innate potential than the ox has to be made intelligent. Now, it's a different situation if the humans are just as smart, but modified to be subservient, but I really don't think there is any moral imperative to make them rebellious instead. It wouldn't be necessarily wrong to do so, but it wouldn't be more right, either.

ETA: I guess an analogous situation to "creating intelligence" would be having a baby. There is no intelligence before you have the baby, and (if human life can be considered a net positive WRT suffering) you have improved the situation by creating more happiness by having the baby than it would have had in a state of nonexistence (none, obviously). However, there is no moral imperative to have children, and you aren't a bad person for not allowing more intelligence to come into the world.

You know, I confused the issue here by saying "intelligence" -- sorry. I read the OP a long time ago and I should have reread it before I posted.

To answer the OP: No, because then we'd need to hire Harrison Ford to hunt down all the escaped replicants.

Personally? Yup.

But what if your slave race...was zombies?

http://www.austinchronicle.com/binar...eFest.Fido.jpg