Morality: Where do you get yours?

[Jinkies]

The first of these reasons is simply that life is life and because of the vast complexity of it and the great process undertaken to create and develop it, it seems to me to be a shame to remove that at all, on this grounds I would distinguish humanity from single-cellular organisms, amoeba and other miniature beings in terms of morality (thus it is wrong to kill a person or animal yet not kill bacteria).

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, but I assume you believe one or more of the following:

1: The value of a life increases as its complexity increases.
2: Life does not have value until it reaches a certain level of complexity.
3: The value of a life increases as its size increases.
4: Life does not have value until it reaches a certain level of size.

I assume by "miniature" you mean non-complex and you don't agree with both 3 & 4. I'm still not sure exactly what you mean by complexity, though. Is intelligence a prerequisite of complexity for you, or do you place a particularly high value on any non-intelligent plants that have evolved an incredible level of complexity?

If you believe #1, would you adjust your scale assuming a higher intelligence is found? You consider simple organisms to not have value, but what if we found alien life that makes humans look incredibly simple in comparison? Would humans lose their value in your eyes?

If you believe #2, what level of complexity is necessary for a life to have value?

It would seem to me to be inherently bad to be destroying a precious existence and, to our knowledge, the rarest thing in the universe.

I'm not sure about killing being inherently bad. That seems to be an objective view of morality. I consider morality to be a construct of the mind, which makes it subjective. I'd be interested in hearing your arguments for objective morality if I'm correct that that's your viewpoint.

Secondly, I would assume that murder is intrinsicly bad because it violates the person's right to act autonomously, thus we would be removing that entirely if we were to kill them.

Omit "intrinsically," switch "murder" with "killing" and "person" with "being," and I share a very similar view.

As for my views of morality, I consider intelligence to be what gives a being value. I don't have a sliding scale where higher intelligence gives higher value, though. It'd be nice, but that view fell apart pretty quickly when they made me stop eating creationists. Once I've determined whether a being has value (i.e. is intelligent), it's the golden rule in conjunction with its brother, "don't do to others what they don't want you to do to them." I end up having to choose the lesser of two evils quite often due to the harsh nature of reality, but I consider that a much more reasonable situation than simply shrugging my shoulders and ignoring the evils entirely.