3 ms·

>You could use a different term if this one is too fuzzy. What would we use? Existence of brain waves? Existence of neurons? Those both would include most anim

>You could use a different term if this one is too fuzzy. What would we use? Existence of brain waves? Existence of neurons? Those both would include most animals. >like recognition of self, by which you prioritize e.g. a person over a dog Babies cannot recognize themselves in the mirror until around 1.5 years old. Several types of animals can recognize themselves in the mirror: elephants, dolphins, primates, mice, some birds, some fish. If we justify the value of babies by saying that they'll have certain abilities in the future, that same thing could be said about a zygote. >> A sperm isn't a young human; it isn't growing into an adult human. An egg isn't a young human; it isn't growing into an adult human. >But they are? The only reason they try to fuse together at all is in service of the growth of a human. Sure the only reason they fuse is in service of the growth of a human. However, before fusing, a sperm only has half the DNA of a human. A sperm's DNA doesn't define a human, and isn't sufficient to grow into a human, and thus cannot be called a young human. Same for an egg. A zygote has the full DNA of a human, which defines a human, and thus the zygote can grow into a human, and thus the zygote can be called a young human. >>Just because they're nearby each other doesn't make them a human life. >Right. By the same token, I don’t think a single cell constitutes a “human life” That's not the same token. I was saying that 2 (or 3) things being nearby each other doesn't make them 1 entity. You're talking about whether a single entity has certain abilities or not. Those are 2 different discussions.

BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
>What would we use? Existence of brain waves? Existence of neurons? Those both would include most animals. Relating this back to abortion, existence of brain waves is a higher bar than existence of neurons is a higher bar than fertilization. If I could convince you to care about either of those instead, then sure let’s run with that. The question with abortion is “at what point are we concerned that killing something could be unethical.” For the criteria to include some or even most animals isn’t a terrible thing; we probably shouldn’t kill animals willy nilly. >>like recognition of self, by which you prioritize e.g. a person over a dog >Babies cannot recognize themselves in the mirror until around 1.5 years old. Several types of animals can recognize themselves in the mirror: elephants, dolphins, primates, mice, some birds, some fish. >If we justify the value of babies by saying that they'll have certain abilities in the future, that same thing could be said about a zygote. If I recall correctly, I was explicitly talking about how we might go about evaluating and comparing ethical worth beyond the developmental scale relevant to abortion, and I said this was just hypothetical. I wasn’t arguing recognition of self is relevant to abortion. >However, before fusing, a sperm only has half the DNA of a human. A sperm's DNA doesn't define a human, and isn't sufficient to grow into a human, and thus cannot be called a young human. I don’t consider the “completeness of DNA” philosophically relevant. The sperm-egg system, both considered together, does have a complete set of DNA. Why does the physical separation change the fundamental ethical nature of interfering with the process? If I have a sperm and egg very close to each other, about to merge, and place a barrier between them, why wouldn’t this be as ethically horrifying as immediately destroying the product of their merging? >I was saying that 2 (or 3) things being nearby each other doesn't make them 1 entity. Let’s agree my argument and analogy were poor. Why does entity-ness matter to ethics? When you say entity, are you referring to a physical body, or to a unified consciousness? Is a rock an entity? What about an amoeba?
- Thorrez 1y ago
  >For the criteria to include some or even most animals isn’t a terrible thing; we probably shouldn’t kill animals willy nilly. Do you believe that killing a baby is morally worse than killing an innocent dog or elephant? And what is the reasoning for that belief? Do you believe that killing an innocent adult is morally worse than killing a baby? And what is the reasoning for that belief? I believe that killing a baby is worse than killing an innocent dog or elephant, because human life has intrinsic value significantly greater than non-human animal life. I believe that killing an innocent adult and a baby are equally bad, because all people have equal value. >I don’t consider the “completeness of DNA” philosophically relevant. The sperm-egg system, both considered together, does have a complete set of DNA. Why does the physical separation change the fundamental ethical nature of interfering with the process? If they're physically separated, we don't have an entity that could be called a young human. We don't have an entity that contains a plan for how to grow into an adult. After they've joined, we do have an entity that could be called a young human. >If I have a sperm and egg very close to each other, about to merge, and place a barrier between them, why wouldn’t this be as ethically horrifying as immediately destroying the product of their merging? No. In the same way that it's not horrifying if some other sperm zoomed in real fast and fertilized the egg and blocks off the first sperm. Before fertilization, there is no entity that could be called a young human. >Why does entity-ness matter to ethics? There's no known way a single person can be composed of 2 physical entities. So I say that when there are 2 physical entities, there isn't a single person composed of the 2 of them. Another line of reasoning is why should there be a moral difference between a sperm and egg very close to each other and a sperm and egg miles apart? I don't see any reason. We would have to consider every possible pair of sperm and egg in the world as a person, which doesn't make sense. >When you say entity, are you referring to a physical body, or to a unified consciousness? Physical body. There's no known way a person can be split across 2 bodies. So a sperm and an egg can't be a person. >Is a rock an entity? What about an amoeba? Yes and yes.

BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago

>What would we use? Existence of brain waves? Existence of neurons? Those both would include most animals. Relating this back to abortion, existence of brain waves is a higher bar than existence of neurons is a higher bar than fertilization. If I could convince you to care about either of those instead, then sure let’s run with that. The question with abortion is “at what point are we concerned that killing something could be unethical.” For the criteria to include some or even most animals isn’t a terrible thing; we probably shouldn’t kill animals willy nilly. >>like recognition of self, by which you prioritize e.g. a person over a dog >Babies cannot recognize themselves in the mirror until around 1.5 years old. Several types of animals can recognize themselves in the mirror: elephants, dolphins, primates, mice, some birds, some fish. >If we justify the value of babies by saying that they'll have certain abilities in the future, that same thing could be said about a zygote. If I recall correctly, I was explicitly talking about how we might go about evaluating and comparing ethical worth beyond the developmental scale relevant to abortion, and I said this was just hypothetical. I wasn’t arguing recognition of self is relevant to abortion. >However, before fusing, a sperm only has half the DNA of a human. A sperm's DNA doesn't define a human, and isn't sufficient to grow into a human, and thus cannot be called a young human. I don’t consider the “completeness of DNA” philosophically relevant. The sperm-egg system, both considered together, does have a complete set of DNA. Why does the physical separation change the fundamental ethical nature of interfering with the process? If I have a sperm and egg very close to each other, about to merge, and place a barrier between them, why wouldn’t this be as ethically horrifying as immediately destroying the product of their merging? >I was saying that 2 (or 3) things being nearby each other doesn't make them 1 entity. Let’s agree my argument and analogy were poor. Why does entity-ness matter to ethics? When you say entity, are you referring to a physical body, or to a unified consciousness? Is a rock an entity? What about an amoeba?

Thorrez 1y ago
>For the criteria to include some or even most animals isn’t a terrible thing; we probably shouldn’t kill animals willy nilly. Do you believe that killing a baby is morally worse than killing an innocent dog or elephant? And what is the reasoning for that belief? Do you believe that killing an innocent adult is morally worse than killing a baby? And what is the reasoning for that belief? I believe that killing a baby is worse than killing an innocent dog or elephant, because human life has intrinsic value significantly greater than non-human animal life. I believe that killing an innocent adult and a baby are equally bad, because all people have equal value. >I don’t consider the “completeness of DNA” philosophically relevant. The sperm-egg system, both considered together, does have a complete set of DNA. Why does the physical separation change the fundamental ethical nature of interfering with the process? If they're physically separated, we don't have an entity that could be called a young human. We don't have an entity that contains a plan for how to grow into an adult. After they've joined, we do have an entity that could be called a young human. >If I have a sperm and egg very close to each other, about to merge, and place a barrier between them, why wouldn’t this be as ethically horrifying as immediately destroying the product of their merging? No. In the same way that it's not horrifying if some other sperm zoomed in real fast and fertilized the egg and blocks off the first sperm. Before fertilization, there is no entity that could be called a young human. >Why does entity-ness matter to ethics? There's no known way a single person can be composed of 2 physical entities. So I say that when there are 2 physical entities, there isn't a single person composed of the 2 of them. Another line of reasoning is why should there be a moral difference between a sperm and egg very close to each other and a sperm and egg miles apart? I don't see any reason. We would have to consider every possible pair of sperm and egg in the world as a person, which doesn't make sense. >When you say entity, are you referring to a physical body, or to a unified consciousness? Physical body. There's no known way a person can be split across 2 bodies. So a sperm and an egg can't be a person. >Is a rock an entity? What about an amoeba? Yes and yes.