[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by horn

sure, but if we accept that there are no real objective moral values

Which there aren't, yes.

Originally Posted by horn

what else does an attempt to map out a moral framework aim for?

An extension of the concept of "human rights" does reasonably well, with conflicts being decided by favouring the one which reduces rights less. For example, stopping murder because the right of someone to commit a murder is somewhat lesser than the right of someone to do anything at all. This also has the side effect of being much more situational than current laws; thou shalt not steal is all well and good, but there's a significant difference in the level of criminality between a poor person stealing food to eat, and a rich person stealing diamonds to test out their new diamond crushing machine.

Originally Posted by horn

the ones i've heard of generally venture to fit (in a logical fashion), "gut feelings", whether they be that happiness is good, deceit is bad, as is ending another's life and so on...

Happiness is a very hard thing to actually define, so it's not really relevent. And you can be opposed to murder in a completely abstract, non-""gut feeling"" way. I couldn't really give a damn about most of the random people walking around me in society, yet I'd still support their right to not get murdered.

Originally Posted by horn

if we don't use these "gut feelings" as a guide then we might aswell focus on the most ergonomic technique for buttering toast and simply label it a "moral code".

Ignoring the false dichotomy, sure. You can use that as a basis for a moral code all you like. There's nothing "wrong" with that at all.

Originally Posted by horn

in the thread so far we have all accepted the (supposed) truism that it is wrong to inflict "unnecessary pain", and indeed to test on another human being (ignoring those with severe brain damage etc). this in itself has crossed the is-ought gap and outside of a validification using a social contract* has no real justification other than "it just seems wrong".

Putting to one side the gibberish that makes up most of this, there are quite a few reasons that, off the top of my head, are valid ones for opposing the causing of pain in humans.

The fact it's our own species, is one.
The fact that humans are unique in showing such an advanced level of cognitive capacity, is another.
The fact that the sky is blue, is a third.

Moral arguments do not need justification. They do not need argument. If I say something (such as, say, putting butter on ham sandwiches) is anathema, axiomically, to my moral code, then you have no argument other than that you consider me to be lying, which even you can probably see isn't really very constructive. Morality has no abstract to it.

Originally Posted by horn

I'd argue that because the dichotomy offered by dante and i assume yourself and milo between humans and (what appears to be) all other animals is unclear and poorly defined

Lets just do it by relative brain size, that's a trivial one. Or a species-wide capacity for smartness or whatever.

There are an enormous number of things in biology that are unclear and poorly defined. Species, for example. Life. Evolutionary mechanisms.

The fact that humans are smarter than other creatures is not among them.

Originally Posted by horn

ergo we shouldn't entirely dismiss that little twinge in our minds that says "i'm not sure i feel too good about cooking this chimp alive in an oven when just a second ago it was playing with me with what seemed a higher degree of intelligence than my 6 month year old nephew".

Evolutionary artifact, like yawning causing other people to yawn and the way that fatty things taste nice. Hardly something to base a system of ethics upon.

Originally Posted by horn

because i like neuroscience

Not sure how this is relevent.

Originally Posted by horn

(and don't like the idea of people needlessley torturing animals, particularly those with larger brains)

I don't like the idea of people endlessly quoting tired internet memes, doesn't mean I'd ban it.

Originally Posted by horn

i sort of bundled scientific ethics in with legislation.

No you didn't. Furthermore, when and if you reply to this, you should bear in mind that the full stop at the end of the previous sentence has all possible counterarguments to your points bundled in with it.

You can't tell this of course, but you're fairly experienced at reading what isn't there.

Originally Posted by horn

and of course stem cell research is hardly the only field of science that will lead to the kind of technology needed.

So we don't actually have the technology needed NOW? Surely, sir, you jest, as this is somewhat opposed in viewpoint to:

"because some fantasies are more viable than others. the gist i get from most articles written on stem cell research and such is that the main restraint is not scientific/engineering ability, it's legislation and lack of funding."

which you posted earlier on this very topic, and which is what I was replying to!