3 ms·
That's a different situation, isn't it? I mean, it depends on the specifics, but if you have someone who'll never reach even the intelligence of a cat... It's
by Filligree 9y ago
That's a different situation, isn't it?
I mean, it depends on the specifics, but if you have someone who'll never reach even the intelligence of a cat... It's hard to justify their life on ethical grounds, when effectively "they" don't exist. Maybe that wasn't the situation you had in mind.
- jessriedel 9y agoMost people don't value human life in proportion to intelligence. You can certainly construct an ethical framework with various thresholds, but my point is that the actual rules in place today reflect a regulatory equilibrium rather than a self-consistent moral philosophy. Most sensible philosophies will consider at least some modern accepted practices to be morally reprehensible.
- kalleboo 9y ago> but my point is that the actual rules in place today reflect a regulatory equilibrium rather than a self-consistent moral philosophy I guess since people's morals are so varied, it's too hard to agree on a self-consistent moral philosophy. As an extreme example, just look at cases where people will ensure the right for a child to be born, but then not ensure rights to continuing health/nutrition/education. Beyond outliers like that there's a spectrum of every kind of opinion
- jessriedel 9y agoUnder that logic, we'd stop saving the lives of the homeless in ERs unless we also gauranteed their health and education.
- kalleboo 9y agoMakes sense to me. Why save someone's life if you're going to kick them right back out onto the street to die in some alley again? You may not be surprised to hear I'm from a country with a strong social safety net (which I guess works because there is more consensus on life over liberty)
- DiffEq 9y agoHow do you justify the cat's life then, or any life? What level of intelligence has to be met? Who defines that? Why is intelligence the defining attribute?