When do we cross the line from 'animal' to 'person?'

[genkaus]

How do you know that it is those two criteria that confer ethical worth?

Because without these two practicing morality would not be possible. The concept of ethical behavior (and thus being a moral agent) is applicable only to those who possess these qualities.

If you have one but not the other (as in, animals have self-consciousness but not rationality) does that make them 1/2 as valuable as people?

No. Its all or nothing.

How do you deal with people that do not have either e.g. fetus's, unconscious old people?

One of the issues I've not figured out completely. As it stands now, I regard their worth with respect to their potential worth in future or past or their worth as measured by those who support their life.

Do they become ethically erroneous as soon as they lose those criteria?

What do you mean by ethically erroneous?

What makes you so sure?

The fact that those qualities are necessary and basic to ethical behavior.

What is being reduced in value statements?

What does this mean?

Do they ultimately refer to properties of value in that exist in the world or are they created by societies?

"Value" - being conceptual in nature - does not exist in the world. It is created by and exists in mind of a rational being.

You sound very confident about what you are saying, but I think you are talking about a standard that is essentially a made up standard.

All standards in existence are essentially made up by humans. But you can present a standard with confidence if you can justify it rationally.

There are many words which describe psychological/physiological properties that are related to ethics.

Given that the field of ethics is psychological in nature - that's to be expected.

You narrow it down to two, but I could think of others, such as the degree to which an agent is functioning in his proper teleological role and fulfilling his duties to society and not causing harm as defined by his design and the processes of establishing the ends of human behavior as law.

Justify why I should accept the role imposed upon me by the society and you'd have a case.

You list rationality and self consciousness as your criteria, do all people have an equal right to live?

To the extent they do not infringe upon the similar right granted to others - yes.

Is it ever moral to fight a war?

When defending your life and liberty and so on...

How do you derive a set of ethics with those two scienc-ey principles?

Check out my discussion with Whateverist in the thread "What is GOOD?". You'll find your answers there.

How do you define moral responsibility?

Acceptance of consequences of your actions.

You probably don't believe that people have free will.

I do.

You probably come to the end of all of this and have some sort of "enlightened" view of ethics that makes people essentially cogs in a social machine that must constantly redefine ethical norms for people who are effective incapacitated by their lack of free will and lack of any guiding criteria for behavior other than an arbitrary stopping point of the two criteria of "rationality" and "self consciousness" that are constantly re-evaluated and revised according to the whims of the societies that enforce their norms on others.

Nonsense. Why would you assume anything so ridiculous? If you are going to build a strawman, atleast put some effort into it.

What stops people from choosing other criteria to define ethical norms?

Nothing - as long as it doesn't infringe upon the freedom of others to do the same.

Some people are primitivists, they consider nature to be sacred.

Let them live like that then - I say.

Others believe in animal rights and consider a different measure of worth to signify ethical value.

As long as they can provide justification for it, I'd consider it.

In the end I think you realize that you have what is basically an ad hoc view of morality, that fails to capture the human spirit and brilliance of the uninhibited soul as it acts on its divinely given impulses.

I realize no such thing. In fact, I realize the opposite. I consider morality based on uninhibited, unconsidered impulses to be irrational and to go against the very concept of what it means to be moral and I consider my morality to be based on the most sacred and noble aspect of human spirit.

Of course, none of what you have written is even remotely adequate, from a theistic perspective.

Obviously - since your perspective begins with incorrect premises.

Maybe that is why you are so angry.

Who says I'm angry?

I think the categories of "rationality" and "self consciousness" show the point I made earlier, about relying on practical reason to understand reality.

And what point would that be?

You know in your heart that it is ad hoc,

My heart is not capable of knowledge and my head knows its not.

that it does not capture life in itself, only your values and perception of life.

Nonsense. If I thought that, I'd throw it out and start from the scratch.

That is why I say it is like the mind of a shopkeeper, who has practical reason to guide him and tell him what is acceptable in his world, but which fails to penetrate the nature of things.

Then I'd take the analogy as a compliment, because practical reason is the way to penetrate the nature of things.

If practical reason is enough to understand the purpose of life and that meets your (very low) standard, well, ok, but why be so aggressive about it?

Because fools like you would have crappy standards dressed up noble values and seek to replace the noblest values built upon the foundation of reason - the basis of human achievement. Letting such a disgusting attempt stand goes against my moral principles.

It is not like you are sharing anything other than your opinions.

Ofcourse, it is. I'm sharing my worldview which is not reducible to mere opinions.