The content on or accessible through Medpedia.com is for informational purposes only. Medpedia is not a substitute for professional advice or expert medical services from a qualified health professional.
Read more
Medpedia Answers
(Other)Medpedia Answers is a platform for asking and answering questions about health and medicine. Read more.
Is immortality immoral?
There is one letter different between the words immorality and immortality and beyond that one letter, as two concepts, there may be a relationship.
There is much discussion in society and ethical circles today about the morality of cloning and the issues of the destruction of embryos. This discourse is about the morality of procedures at the beginning of life and how a personhood begins. After this beginning, the term immortality is often used as recognition of a person’s accomplishments beyond death. This immortality is usually ascribed to artists, writers, poets and others whose acts in life are preserved through future generations. Woody Allen allegedly said "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying."
The other use of the term immortality is that of living forever. Therefore what should also be discussed in society is about the morality of the goal of attempting to live or maintaining life perhaps forever. What is the morality of attempting immortality? This consideration becomes pertinent if one considers that the current studies on the genetic factors that cause everyone to die could eventually lead to developing genetic changes so that everyone could live and live and live. Is it ethically wrong to want or make it possible to live forever? Moral considerations might include who or which groups of people would be given the chance to live forever or would this be available to all persons? Where would the increasing numbers of people live and what resources would be available to all so that their lives would be worth living? There could be more questions. Is any attempt to prolong life well beyond our "four score and ten" open to ethical questions? Should the goal of all science be to provide a comfortable and enriching life but not necessarily to prolong it? And what do the answers say to the question could immortality be immoral? ..Maurice.
There is much discussion in society and ethical circles today about the morality of cloning and the issues of the destruction of embryos. This discourse is about the morality of procedures at the beginning of life and how a personhood begins. After this beginning, the term immortality is often used as recognition of a person’s accomplishments beyond death. This immortality is usually ascribed to artists, writers, poets and others whose acts in life are preserved through future generations. Woody Allen allegedly said "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying."
The other use of the term immortality is that of living forever. Therefore what should also be discussed in society is about the morality of the goal of attempting to live or maintaining life perhaps forever. What is the morality of attempting immortality? This consideration becomes pertinent if one considers that the current studies on the genetic factors that cause everyone to die could eventually lead to developing genetic changes so that everyone could live and live and live. Is it ethically wrong to want or make it possible to live forever? Moral considerations might include who or which groups of people would be given the chance to live forever or would this be available to all persons? Where would the increasing numbers of people live and what resources would be available to all so that their lives would be worth living? There could be more questions. Is any attempt to prolong life well beyond our "four score and ten" open to ethical questions? Should the goal of all science be to provide a comfortable and enriching life but not necessarily to prolong it? And what do the answers say to the question could immortality be immoral? ..Maurice.
asked Aug 29, 2010 at 09:48PM in Other
-
1Votesanswered Aug 30, 2010 at 06:02PMKim, but where should science draw the line as, for example, how old is too old? Another question: what diseases or disorders of functioning should science stop looking for a cure or a method of prevention? Should the diseases and disorders common to infants and children be continued to be researched but those affecting the elderly be discontinued? Or should the halting of further research be limited to research into the biology of the aging process itself rather than stopping research into the diagnosis and treatment of diseases which not only kill but present a burden and misery to those who remain alive?
Now getting into a philosophical aspect of my Question which you have raised with the presumption "There is always the search for physical immortality, which is imposing one's ego on that which is meant to be finite on this earth." Yes, I am sure that the "ego" is an important element in the behavior and goals of research scientists. But what I want to bring up to discussion is whether life is really "meant to be finite on this earth" If it is simply the finite number of humans or other animals which can occupy this planet and survive, that is one consideration. However, do we really know that human and animal biology is so fixed that no human brain can eventually develop the knowledge and tools to take apart the mechanism we all have for a finite life and reconstruct it to permit infinite existence? I don't know but our world has, though human thought and science allowed us to perform acts which in past centuries were never considered or considered impossible. Maybe, reconstructing the aging process will be another such act. Now, again, whether this would be a moral act..well, that was my original question. ..Maurice. -
0Votes
answered Aug 31, 2010 at 06:25AMYikes! This is a difficult question. The science of medicine is always evolving, and people are living longer and longer due to advanced medicine. The point of medicine, I think, is to extend life, save lives, etc.
However, I believe it's immoral to use science to extend the lives of people who are suffering and whose death is imminent. A person can live until 105 but still be having the time of his/her life and be very independent. Another person can be in his/her 70s and suffering.
If reconstructing the aging process helps people live quality lives longer, I'm all for it!! Many individuals get diseases young, however, and will die from them.
One question, then, is that if medicine can extend life through helping navigate the aging process, isn't this related to curing all diseases? I think you can't have one without the other, and I think there will always be diseases. -
1Votesanswered Aug 31, 2010 at 07:36AMYes, Beth, there always may be diseases and I'm sure there will always be doctors to try to cure them but there is one "disease" which I doubt will ever be cured and that will make the discussion of prolonging life for all simply an academic exercise. And that "disease" is war and the killing of one man by another for whatever reason or no reason at all. That reaction of one human against another may never be able to be tweaked out of the human genome even if disease and the genetics of ageing is conquered. ..Maurice.
-
I couldn't agree with you more. War and homicide will never be cured; unfortunately, it's in human nature, it seems, to have this darker side.Beth L. Gainer commented Sep 01, 2010 at 02:20PM
-
-
2Votes
answered Aug 31, 2010 at 03:37PMEvery human one day will die.This has happened through out the ages.
Through out human's recorded existence on earth natural disasters, pestilences, famines, wars and man-made destructive behaviors and just "bad-luck" ( a car accident) have always found a way to keep the population in "equilibrium".
Immortality is impossible on this earth for mankind or any animal. There is "nothing new under the sun."
We are still trying to find out how the stonehedge and other ancient wonders were built and set up.
Ancients also had great intelligence, but still died.
Science and Medicine only can prolong life for so long.
I do not believe that it is immoral to think or strive for immortality.The best of mankind only has finite intelligence. Man is not infinitely intelligent. It would take an infinite intelligence for immortality.
Read Alfred Wallace's differing view with Darwin on natural selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace
Dreaming is good and health.
Have fun and enjoy this finite thing called life.
. -
0Votesanswered Sep 01, 2010 at 03:26PMThanks to Kim, Beth and Brendan for help with this question. If I may, I would like to turn my original question around for a better understanding about the concept of morality itself.
The "turned around" question would be: "Is morality, itself, immortal?" Do you see any reason that morality which guides our following a path which is limited by the right and wrong, the good and the bad will ever disappear or it will continue as long as humans exist? If morality will exist then would what is moral today surely to be equally moral in the distant future? Does morality represent the whim of the moment, a consensus set by humanity at a certain time or is it unchanging, what is a good now in human behavior will always be a good?
What I am getting at is to clarify my original question: "Is immortality immoral?" Since if morality is not immortal but can change, the answer to my original question is a matter for the present since how immortality will look in the future may be different. Or, on the other hand, the the issue of human immortality, by the earlier comments may be moot and therefore so is the original question. Enough said. ..Maurice. -
1Votesanswered Sep 01, 2010 at 04:23PMMorality comes from outside of ourselves from a "higher authority". Man's perception of right and wrong changes with time and opportunity.
Our values change because we are mortal humans. The Truth never changes. What is presented as Facts in one generation may be disproved as Falsehood in another. The Truth never changed.
Good and Bad never change. Man judges what is good and bad and Man changes.
Once ago, it was regarded as a moral fact by mankind that the whole world evolved around the earth. It was regarded as a Moral Truth, but it was not the Truth.
Man is fallible. Only the "Truth" can truly judge what is truly moral forever, not us.
Maurice, just my views. -
0Votesanswered Sep 01, 2010 at 07:28PMDo you think, Kim, that society is really fully aware of where science might be leading us and the nature of our lives and the degree of moral capacity we will retain in the future? Do you think that the majority feel that morality will continue to exist and our control of setting the moral boundaries in the future will still be present? Or as Brendan states "Only the 'Truth' can truly judge what is truly moral forever..", will we even have the capacity to recognize the "Truth" or only identify with concepts that have been delivered to us and set through eons of the various genetic manipulations of our bodies and minds, a scientific and medical process which may be just beginning in our lifetime? ..Maurice.
-
0Votesanswered Sep 02, 2010 at 07:59AMI believe that there is no such thing as morality. This is a concept that humans have created to judge -- from individual to individual -- whether something is right or wrong. But right and wrong really don't exist. Morality is really an opinion. In vitro fertilization is considered moral to some, immoral to others. Even religious morality varies depending on the individual.
-
0Votesanswered Sep 02, 2010 at 01:47PMBeth, that is why we members of a hospital clinical ethics committee do not make the final decisions regarding morality. We only try, through education of ethical principles to bring the parties together to make their own decision as to whether an act is moral or not, if that is what is to be decided. Now some may say that the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice are arbitrary but we have to have some structure to judge morality from immorality. ..Maurice.
-
I completely agree that we need to have structure in place to determine what's ethical and moral. It varies from family to friends to the patient him or herself.Beth L. Gainer commented Sep 02, 2010 at 02:46PM
-
Sign-in
to post an answer to this question.
Related Questions
in
Other
- Plavix, ASA, and beta blockers.
- Recurrent abscess/lesions on breast, upper chest, arm
- Would you like to play ethicist with 4 cases?
- Do allergies last forever?
- What's the best way to clean a scratch from a cat?
- Are physicians to serve as "moral gatekeepers"?
- Must a physician be required to participate in completing a yet uncompleted suicide attempt by following the patient’s refusal for life-saving treatment?
- What should be the ethical or legal intent to turn off or remove a cardiac pacemaker device?
- While it is permitted by law in some states within the United States for a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription for emergency contraception drug or any contraceptive for reasons of conscience, is this really ethical?
- One Man’s Art is Another Man’s Graffiti: What is Ethical vs What is Immoral?
- »» See All
The content on or accessible through Medpedia.com is for informational purposes only. Medpedia is not a substitute for professional advice or expert medical services from a qualified health professional.
Read more