The issue is that what we're discussing is not objectively unethical. If we were discussing disecting live babies, then no one would disagree that anyone for that is unethical and even evil. But extending human life? We don't know exactly what would happen if we did that. Some people think it would be the end of the world, others (like me) think it would actually bring about positive change. Given that it's controversial, the problem is stating "I believe it's dangerous and wrong" and combinding that with "and therefor you are a bad/unethical person". That is censoring and shutting down the argument. Who are you to make that call?
Doesn't it depend on how strongly your belief about the ethics are? We all place ethical considerations on a scale - murder is worse than littering. The exact placement of an action on the moral spectrum, however, is subjective (e.g. some people place eating animals very high on the spectrum as being very immoral).
Everyone is going to have some threshold where they think 'an act that is this immoral means the person doing the action is also immoral', where actions that are below that threshold are treated as 'this action is unethical, but the person doing it could still be good'
Most people think someone who murders is a bad person (the act is immoral, and the person doing it is immoral). However, as the we move down the line, EVERYONE has to 'make the call' as to where the action becomes something that doesn't immediately make the person doing the action immoral. It isn't wrong that we have to make that call, it is the only way.
At the very least we need to consider the culture. In our culture there are things where we consider them unambigously immoral and anyone engaging in them or even defending them is as well. But we have other things that are at least controversial to most people (e.g. eating animals). In the latter case, I find it perfectly fine to argue against it, even passionately so. But it's absolutely not ok to demonize or ostracise people for it. I feel like, as a society, we knew this until recently. At least most of us did.
>I haven't censored anyone or shut down any argument by saying this
You haven't shut down any argument by saying "anyone who works on this is a bad person"? Seriously? I happen to think the exact opposite: life extension is probably one of the most noble things we could possibly be working on. Imagine if Einstein were still alive. We never learn from history, maybe because the people who lived it are all dead now. But in your mind, thinking this way probably makes me unethical (i.e. bad)! It's no problem when we're both two blobs of text on a forum, but I certainly wouldn't want you to be a boss or someone I was forced to interact with on a regular basis. And if enough people behave as radical as you are they will likely want to go beyond simply labelling people (e.g. see all the "hate crime" talk).
It is fine that you think the opposite and I'd be happy to keep talking about it. You're probably overestimating how much it means (to me) for me to regard someone as unethical.
I don't see how I can stop extrapolating from "action X is unethical because the expected consequences look like bad ones" to "this person who dearly wants to bring about action X is behaving unethically". I simply don't see them as being meaningfully different statements.
First of all, it's not you specifically. On a forum it never is. When we post here we represent a certain portion of the population. And things like censorship have proven to be very dangerous so we have to be careful.
In your second paragraph you've deviated from what I'm talking about (perhaps I was responding to the wrong person? EDIT: I didn't). "Person X is behaving unethically" is perfectly fine. "This person is an unethical person because they engage in action X" is where I draw the line (asuming action X is controversial and not very clearly evil like first degree murder) because it assigns a trait to someone by which they will be judged by their peers.
EDIT: Actually no:
>people dedicating their lives to it today are unethical people.
You said that. So your revised statement is moving the goal posts.
No individual owes me that, but this goes far beyond that. You have to keep in mind that any oppinion shared on line represents more than the person expressing it. And it may change the minds of others reading it. If anyone who works on controversial subject X gets a label of unethical that's not just "not owing them a reasonable discussion", you're impacting their life. Potentially ruining it.
Given your stance here, you're perfectly ok with the baker refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, right? Because the law was effectively the sea lion in your comic.
How so? Stating your thoughts with conviction ends any hope of a reasonable discussion? Maybe if you're afraid of confrontation. For me it's an invitation to debate.
You find labelling people is in invitation to a debate? So if you find yourself in a position where you desperately need a job but upper management says "I think people of race X are <racial slur>" you would take that as an invitiation to a debate? Saying a person is unethical is labelling them. That's what I object to, not debate or confrontation.
