3 ms·
I think you're defining harm based on sentience where as my definition of harm would include damage to not sentient objects.
by cjbgkagh 1y ago
I think you're defining harm based on sentience where as my definition of harm would include damage to not sentient objects.
- const_cast 1y agoBut if we follow that definition of harm we get to an untenable place. Big boys gotta eat, and broccoli is good for you. We have to draw the line somewhere, and I see no reason to draw the line so far back that we're considering clumps of cells on the same level as us. We can do that, sure, but what do we gain? More heartache, harder decisions, more prison time? What's the benefit?
- cjbgkagh 1y agoI wouldn’t use ‘harm’ as the moral delineator, depending on the context it’s very much ok to do harm. It isn’t sufficient context on its own. I think it’s the attempt to be moral by a simplistic definition of ‘doing no harm’ that leads to the contortions to the definition of harm. In this context we’re talking about if it’s ok to harm a small set of cells, and again it depends on context. Consider the act of assaulting a pregnant woman to harm the fetus, it’s the same fetus that has come to the same harm the only thing that is different is who made the choice.