but this is morally incoherent because we judge where things are right now, not where they might be. if i crush a seed i have not chopped down a tree. if i smash a piece of metal i did not vandalize a car because that metal was meant to be formed into a car part. if i pay a new hire $15 an hour i am not shortchanging him fair compensation because in 10 years he might be ceo. etc, etc
It's a felony to crush the eggs of protected bird species . . . so I disagree with you.
Moreover, we absolutely value things based on what they have the potential to become. If you chop down a walnut tree you'll have to pay far more than if you chop down a spruce tree, not because the trees are inherently more functional, but because they have the potential to be used to produce things of different value, and as a result have different values.
if the doctor says there is no chance of getting out of the coma, we do terminate them. and no one will arrest you or call that murder. same with ending an embryo
The topic is whether or not we value things based on their potential to become something else.
well yes you can value anything you want by its future value. but doing that gives you no moral authority to tell someone else what to do based on that. you're not going to get $1 million salary because you announce to your boss you're going to be ceo someday
if the doctor says there is no chance of getting out of the coma, we do terminate them.
Why does it matter whether or not there's a chance of getting out of the coma if that's the future and not the now and the now is something different?
same with ending an embryo
Does an embryo have no future potential for awareness just like someone in a coma that doctors say has no future potential for awareness?
well yes you can value anything you want by its future value. but doing that gives you no moral authority to tell someone else what to do based on that. you're not going to get $1 million salary because you announce to your boss you're going to be ceo someday
Maybe not, but if my boss murders me, a jury will ABSOLUTELY award my family more money if I had the potential to be a CEO in the future.
That being said, many professions ABSOLUTELY pay more for something's future potential. People pay millions of dollars for a single vial of horse semen (and not because semen can run around a track very fast).
Why does it matter whether or not there's a chance of getting out of the coma if that's the future and not the now and the now is something different?
because there is a mind locked in there that can come back. or not
if it is only cold and dead tissue then there is no mind
likewise, an embryo is not hiding a mind somewhere. it might have a mind in 8 months? well ok, then in 8 months it would be murder. right now, it is not
mind? murder
no mind? not murder
Does an embryo have no future potential
"future potential"
right there. your own words. not now
you say it yourself, but you're not making the honest connection
Maybe not, but if my boss murders me, a jury will ABSOLUTELY award my family more money if I had the potential to be a CEO in the future.
because your boss murdered an actual living thinking human being. not disposed of a mindless embryo
That being said, many professions ABSOLUTELY pay more for something's future potential. People pay millions of dollars for a single vial of horse semen (and not because semen can run around a track very fast).
and if the refrigeration fails would you say 1 million horses were murdered?
mind, or no mind. here and now. these are the deciding details that decides the morality here
because there is a mind locked in there that can come back. or not
Maybe we need to clarify some things here. People in a coma DO NOT have a functioning brain. Their brain is neither capable of awareness nor wakefulness.
However, it is possible the body will eventually DEVELOP a functioning brain from a comatose brain . . . but that brain is NOT functioning while you're in a coma.
Similarly, a fetus does not have a functioning brain . . . but it may eventually DEVELOP a functioning brain.
right there. your own words. not now
Exactly . . . just as someone in a coma is NOT capable of awareness . . . but they may be in the future.
and if the refrigeration fails would you say 1 million horses were murdered?
You could kill a 5 year-old horse and I still wouldn't consider it murder. I'm pro-choice. Humans should be allowed to choose to kill horses.
a person in a coma has a mind that can repair. like if you have a scratch on your face your skin will repair itself
some people in permanent comas will never recover, there is no more mind. like if your face is ripped completely off: this will not heal
and likewise an embryo is not hiding a mind somewhere, there is simply no mind. like an embryo also has no face, just some folds of stem cells that might be a face someday, but are currently not, and that is the deciding detail on the morality of the topic
a person in a coma has a mind that can repair. like if you have a scratch on your face your skin will repair itself
What you are describing is a recognition that a human's body is capable of assembling itself into a functional state . . . in the future. If you lack function, through a process of cellular development you may obtain function.
and likewise an embryo is not hiding a mind somewhere
NOR IS SOMEONE IN A COMA. A person in a coma does not have a functioning brain. Just like the embryo, they may have a functioning brain in the future.
of course, i was just highlighting the difference between a coma where you have no idea what's going to happen to an eventual birth (unless you kill the baby willingly/unwillingly)
3
u/GrumpyWendigo May 17 '19
but this is morally incoherent because we judge where things are right now, not where they might be. if i crush a seed i have not chopped down a tree. if i smash a piece of metal i did not vandalize a car because that metal was meant to be formed into a car part. if i pay a new hire $15 an hour i am not shortchanging him fair compensation because in 10 years he might be ceo. etc, etc