Morality of Genetically Engineering Soldiers like Jem'hadar or Stormtroopers

[Purple]

That boils down to two questions.

1. Are animals equal to people?
2. Is programing a creature after the fact less or more acceptable than engineering said creature with a programing included.

Now, #1 is a non issue because the answer is obviously no. We might value animals but there is absolutely no situation under which a sane human being is going to say an animal is worth the same or more than a human being in absolute terms.

And #2 is basically this thread.

[Soontir C'boath]

If the issue is we will be desensitized when they look like humans which seems to be a good portion of this thread, then just make them monkeys/apes/etc with human brains. Or just keep them as monkeys and just genetically program them.

[Zixinus]

We do have some ethics regarding the animals we raise and their use: we provide for them, protect them as much as we can (be it from predators, diseases or other hazards) and have a duty to give them a good life outside of their duties. Most service dogs are very well taken care of. Same set of standards for the animals we eat, although the majority of us have been desensitized or deliberately ignorant of to the horrors of factory farming.
Still, using the same standards for genetically engineered creatures would be a good starting off point.

Making them soldiers is very different from making them catch perps or look for bombs, because we enter ethics of making sentient weapons for warfare. We already have problems with non-sentient but semi-autonomous weapons like Predator drones (although that may be just be due to fucked up policies and politics). Unless there are extraordinary circumstances forcing us, making sentient weapons is bad enough if for nothing else than the practical problems others have pointed out in the thread. For one, by the nature of warfare, you cannot guarantee them a good life. If they are sentient, then you have even more ethical responsibilities than with non-sentient animals.

Making better service dogs or designing an animal for a specific job isn't that much different.

[K. A. Pital]

Human is a sentient weapon when inserted into the army. What does this lead to? Wrecked lives, misery, psychological and physical damage to the person (injuries, PTSD, psychosis and more).

If you are so certain you can create a person that enjoys warfare, you are most likely creating a vile sadist by the standards of civilian society that has no place in it.

[Cykeisme]

Whoa, this is a pretty interesting thought experiment.

I think I'm quite set on the idea that engineering beings that enjoy servitude is wrong, but what if it was too late, and they already existed?

What do we do with them? How do we treat them?
Would it be wrong to allow them to serve us, despite it being what they want?

It would be wrong because it creates precedent. If you allow people to profit, directly or indirectly, from an unjust act, then they will be more inclined to commit or support or tolerate that same injustice at a future time.

This is like how courts are not allowed to use evidence they find in an illegal search- it's "fruit of the poisoned tree." You can't let the court say "well sure, the search was illegal, but now that we already have the evidence..." Because if you let them say that, then law enforcement has every reason to start doing illegal searches whenever they are 'really sure' they'll find something they can use as evidence.

It's the same problem. The genetically modified slaves are 'fruit of a poisoned tree,' and we cannot allow ourselves to profit by their willingness to become slaves. If we do, then the next group of would-be slavers have every reason to do the same evil thing in the future.

I had never thought about that.
I do agree with you now.

What you brought up represents an approach that I do believe needs to be explored when I consider my opinion (and support) for all sorts of things, regardless of whether or not my judgment has any bearing on the real world.
That was incredibly enlightening, thanks.

[Simon_Jester]

...Uh, wow. Thanks!

I'd say it's basically just a normal ethical precaution, an extension of a question you've probably asked yourself a zillion times, really.

The question is, does this thing come from an ethical source? If it doesn't, and then if I make use of it, am I enabling people to profit from unethical actions? Am I enabling people to convince themselves that an unethical action will profit me?

If I am enabling others' unethical actions in those ways, then their actions are in some measure on my conscience.

I mean heck, this is why stores advertise "food made from locally sourced produce!" or "fair trade coffee!" and succeed in charging extra for the privilege of selling 'ethical' food and drink. Because we do this all the time, you included probably. Conversely, it's why we sometimes refuse to do business with someone who does unethical things, refusing to give them the satisfaction and rewards of profiting from their unethical actions.