/(me)

/(hudson)
/Why does that make something immoral?



Because you are not being consistent.  Moral systems must be consistent.

A person who thinks they can inflict pain on others, but doesn't want it 
inflicted upon themselves, has a double standard.  And double standards are
a violation of *any* moral system.





(me)

/(hudson)
/Of course we don't like pain.  I don't like brussel sprouts.  Are brussel
/sprouts immoral?

Pain isn't immoral, stupid.  Pain itself is just a physiological
reaction.  

What >>is<< immoral is subjecting unwilling individuals to pain.

Or brussel sprouts, for that matter.






(hudson)
(me)

/(hudson)
/Why would it be wrong to make humans undergo the effects of the reactions
/if humans are composed only of matter?  

What humans are composed of isn't the qualifying criteria of whether or
not something would be wrong.  




/(hudson)
/Is it wrong to make matter undergo chemical reactions?

Yes, if it is sentient matter.



/(me)
/>Nature is not a sentient force; there is no choice involved.  Therefore,
/>no question of morality.


/(hudson)
/I actually heard a geologist entertain the notion that matter had a will.
/There is some sentient force out there.  

Fine.  I have also heard that the government is encoding the DNA for 
a new race of superhumans in ordinary drinking water.  

What's your point?



/(hudson)
/If humans are made only of matter, then choices are also chemical reactions,
/so why is choice an important issue.

And if that is the case, then god is only an idea contained in the minds
of people (formed of matter) and on printed pages (also formed of matter)
and does not really exist.  