|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I'm removed the following text from the article until we determine its appropriateness:
- Some critics, such as Wesley J. Smith, argue that no such right exists, or could exist, because it is incompatible with the notion of human equality and human dignity. He argues that a society that accepts morphological freedom, therefore also by implication, necessarily accepts that some people are "more equal than others," and do not have value "simply, merely because they are human." Although supporters of morphological freedom would agree with the second statement, they would argue that it does not imply that there is no moral worth whatsoever in human persons, but merely that such moral worth is not inherent exclusively to humans, and that all thinking, feeling creatures, irrespective of all other considerations, can have each their own worth, on their own terms.
We need to determine whether or not Smith is specifically attacking morphological freedom as defined in this article or the so-called right to human enhancement as defined by transhumanists. To learn the difference between the two, read Carrico's essay Modification, Not Enhancement; Consent, Not Consensus; Prosthetic Self-Determination, Not Eugenics --Loremaster 21:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Upon review, I believe you are correct in the removal of this segment. I recall Smith once saying that he doesn't mind the "Catman," though he hurriedly injects that he feels sorry for him, but that he would deny the right exists to create "Kittenboy." This would seem to indicate that Smith's objections fall more fully under the topic of "enhancement" than morphological freedom. 188.8.131.52 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK. I have no problem with adding a criticism section to the article as long as the critic we cite is explicitly attacking the concept of morphological freedom. --Loremaster 18:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the following content: "In March 2008 Sandberg and Natasha Vita-More gave a joint talk on morphological freedom in Second Life." It offers no value to the article or to the reader and lacks any degree of specificity. Unless someone can amend the removed content to include information regarding what the talk was about, and why it's relevant to this article, I feel as though this should remain omitted. MichaelKovich (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The article current doesn't correctly cite the current usage of the term. Nick's article certainly refers to the concept and I think indeed More 1993 was first in using it, but they do not use the rights framework I introduced in the 2001 talk/essay (which appears to have defined the usage since then). My suggestion is that the reprint of the essay "Sandberg, A. (2001). Morphological freedom–Why we not just want it, but need it. The transhumanist reader: Classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future, 56-64." is used as an extra reference in the intro paragraph - that fits with the current text and is a citeable academic reference. Since I happen to be personally involved I hope other editors can judge if this makes sense and do the edit. Anders Sandberg (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)