The value of a human life (and why abortion, economics, pulling the plug and triage)

[rjh4 is back]

In matter of a developing fetus, during the early to mid stages of growth there is insufficient brain mass, folding and electrical activity to sustain the potential for that individual to grow into a functioning adult. This area of philosophy, if you are curious, is often called the potentiality argument. Often it is used to argue against abortion, however I am using it to show that a developing fetus during much of its development is fundamentally a nonperson. If it were to be removed or birthed during those times and it's body was kept functionally alive, it would never develop into a thinking individual. No exceptions. That is due to the complexity of biology involved.

Syn, your concept of potentiality seem to center around the potentiality of a child/fetus only after it is separated from its mother. What is the basis for this? Wouldn't it be more logical or flow more naturally to argue potentiality from the perspective of what is potentially possible if the fetus is left in its normal place (i.e., in the mother's womb if it is fetus/pre-born baby, or in the parent's care after birth)? In fact, you go on to say:

"To establish the clear illegality of destroying an infant without consent as another, one must recall that an infant has the clear potential, assuming all bodily needs are met, to develop into a thinking individual. "

If "assuming all bodily needs are met" is part of the analysis of potentiality, then it seem to me this would seem to support the idea that potentiality should be assessed from the perspective of what is potentially possible if the fetus is left in its normal place, not after separation from its mother.

This system of thought thoroughly discards emotion in favor of potential, where potential to develop into/further as a thinking being and the potential to live to the maximum age. This is due to the tied nature of aging (time) and the development of thought, or as we physicists say:

d(developingThought)
-----------------
d(time)

Wherever the rate is highest implies the highest value, the lowest, the lowest value. Therefore the most valuable are the developed beings with the best cognitive development. But consider this - this is an equivalency statement for only one (1) individual. An infant is less valuable than a child, a child less than a teen, a teen less than an adult, with an adult more valuable than the elderly.

As an aside, I never knew that physics dealt with issues such as potentiality of human life such that physicists would be known to say d(developing thought)/d(time).

Anyway, are the "d"s here refering to changes? It seems so. And if that is the case, I fail to see how you reach the conclusion that "An infant is less valuable than a child, a child less than a teen, a teen less than an adult, with an adult more valuable than the elderly". It seems pretty evident to me that children do a lot more developing (even in mind) per unit of time than adults do and that such development/time decreases as time goes on (the older one gets the less development there is per unit of time). Of course this is a generalization and individuals may vary on this depending on how ambitious they are in developing as they age, but I think it is valid generally. If so, then it would seem that a child would be more valuable than a teen, a teen more valuable then an adult. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

Please note, my arguments above should not be taken in any way that I agree that potentiality should be the basis for making life/death decisions for individuals (including preborn ones) or making judgements of the value of individuals.