>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.
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.