4 ms·
> for some reason you prefer to value the lives of non-sentient embryos that are not human over, for example, extremely sentient non-human lives My, "some reas
by rubyist5eva 5y ago
> for some reason you prefer to value the lives of non-sentient embryos that are not human over, for example, extremely sentient non-human lives
My, "some reason" being that as a member of the human species that members of my species have moral value over those that are not my species. Preserving my own species is of more importance to me than the preservation of sewer rats or farm animals.
Your premise is also flawed: Embryos are human. They have distinct, unique human DNA from the moment they are conceived.
> unless you're also a vegan out of ethical concerns.
I try not to talk about it unless asked, and I've held these view long before I was vegan.
Sentience has very little bearing on my argument, as there are humans that exist in early and late stages of life that have some kind of disfunction that renders them, for all intents and purposes, non-sentient. I do not believe it is ethical to kill a 40 year old that is in a coma, with no chance of ever waking up, for example.
> If that's your position it has nothing to do with science. Value systems are informed by science but ultimately determined by subjective values.
This is what I said. I said my views are informed by science. It is a scientific statement to say that an embryo is a human being because of it distinct DNA.
> I subjectively don't give a rat's ass about an embryo that cannot feel anything and that has not experienced consciousness. I'd much rather care about sentient non-human beings.
These are not mutually exclusive.
- Daishiman 5y agoI find the premise that we should defend life of beings that carry DNA out of that simple fact to have no relevance towards my value system. "Human DNA" is not an intrinscally valuable characteristic for me. Sentience, on the other hand, ranks way up higher.
- rubyist5eva 5y agoWhy is sentience so important? It's not a trait unique to human beings, and it's considered morally acceptable to kill certain sentient beings but not human beings? Clearly sentience is not the distinguishing factor here, something else elevates human beings above other animals. I would say sentience is not intrinsically valuable either. What makes a human being a human being? It's not just sentience. Is it our intelligence? What determines our propensity for extremely high levels of intelligence above all other animals? That would be our genes. What distinguishes human beings from chimpanzees, only a small portion of our genetic code. A sperm is not a human being, and neither is an ovum, and yet when they combine and life is created that being has human genes. Women don't give birth to chickens after all. If humans have intrinsic moral value, we need to be able to decide what separates human beings from all other animals. You could name a collection of traits, but ultimately all of them our determined by our genes. So, to me, when I'm trying to build my moral framework of when it is morally acceptable to kill a human - how do I decide? Is killing an innocent human that never did anything wrong ever acceptable? If it isn't, than what makes something human and what determines "humanity"? Why is something distinctly not human, and then suddenly is human?