Maximizing Moral Virtue

[bennyboy]

As to whether humans are more special than animals, that is a separate question. The activation of potential works the same in any animal which develops from the contribution of two parents. If we take it as a given that humans are worth protecting, then the act/potency argument is relevant to the point at which they become worth protecting. 

I don't consider it a separate question, because we define a human and an animal by different value standards. One is worth caring about, and the other is not-- for like 95% of people, at least. But I do not think there is a rational purpose for doing so-- emotionally, we care so little about other animals that it's hardly even worth the effort to formulate a rational argument.

Abortion is a case just like this-- for some, a fetus-before-week-x is not worth caring about, and for others, it is sacrosanct. In order to determine which position to adopt, it's important to (1) make an evaluation; (2) understand the basis for the evaluation. But again, I don't think there IS a rational argument about how to do (1), given that (2) rational arguments are not in fact the basis for the evaluation.

As for act/potency, that really seems like a cherry-picked moment. Should every female egg be harvested and impregnated in a lab? If not, are we committing the sin of failing to bring to fruition every potential human? What about corpses? They could be dug up and cloned. What about artificially-created fetuses? Could we not, now or after some research and development, bring into fruition, using technology, trillions or quadrillions of new human beings?

I say there are already plenty of people, maybe too many. The act/potential of even more people standing in my way on the sidewalks, pulling into the right-hand lane when they intend to go straight, or buying baby formula or feminine hygiene products-- no, I value these potential people negatively, and since they do not yet exist in any meaningful sense of the word, I'll be happy if their prospective mothers decide not to throw new humans in my path at every step.

The ontological change occurs at conception, because that is when the actualization of human potential begins. Neither the sperm nor the egg has the potential to develop into a full human, but the fertilized egg does.

I think that "ontological change" is an illusion. Both the sperm AND the egg have the potential to develop into a full human-- by meeting an egg or a sperm. It is in the nature of the carriers of eggs and sperm, in fact, to make this introduction. If you put a teenage boy and girl in a room long enough without supervision, you will, almost for sure, end up with a human being at some point, so much so that I'd say the existence of gendered individuals is ALREADY sufficient cause for the expectation of new human life.