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

[Autumnlicious]

But now it seems that you have abandoned the idea of potentiality for a standard of comparing the actual achieved level or current level of development. The latter seems much different than the former and the analysis for each would probably give different results.

As we cannot know the future, nor precisely chart out the actual worth of a human being at any time, this graph is functionally useless but for what I meant to communicate - that people are worth more or less over time due to lack of complete growth/degeneration of mental facilities and physical body (as in age).

[Ashendant]

But now it seems that you have abandoned the idea of potentiality for a standard of comparing the actual achieved level or current level of development. The latter seems much different than the former and the analysis for each would probably give different results.

As we cannot know the future, nor precisely chart out the actual worth of a human being at any time, this graph is functionally useless but for what I meant to communicate - that people are worth more or less over time due to lack of complete growth/degeneration of mental facilities and physical body (as in age).

What about other sapient beings do you consider on the same rights as human beings?(possible hipothetical question)

[Autumnlicious]

But now it seems that you have abandoned the idea of potentiality for a standard of comparing the actual achieved level or current level of development. The latter seems much different than the former and the analysis for each would probably give different results.

As we cannot know the future, nor precisely chart out the actual worth of a human being at any time, this graph is functionally useless but for what I meant to communicate - that people are worth more or less over time due to lack of complete growth/degeneration of mental facilities and physical body (as in age).

What about other sapient beings do you consider on the same rights as human beings?(possible hipothetical question)

As sapience implies wisdom, which is a component of rational thought, sure. However, their value can be less or greater when compared to another person.

[Ashendant]

But now it seems that you have abandoned the idea of potentiality for a standard of comparing the actual achieved level or current level of development. The latter seems much different than the former and the analysis for each would probably give different results.

As we cannot know the future, nor precisely chart out the actual worth of a human being at any time, this graph is functionally useless but for what I meant to communicate - that people are worth more or less over time due to lack of complete growth/degeneration of mental facilities and physical body (as in age).

What about other sapient beings do you consider on the same rights as human beings?(possible hipothetical question)

As sapience implies wisdom, which is a component of rational thought, sure. However, their value can be less or greater when compared to another person.

I was talking about rights, not talking about value, to me any definition that gives a lower value to all sapient beings in comparison to other is abhorrent

[Autumnlicious]

But now it seems that you have abandoned the idea of potentiality for a standard of comparing the actual achieved level or current level of development. The latter seems much different than the former and the analysis for each would probably give different results.

As we cannot know the future, nor precisely chart out the actual worth of a human being at any time, this graph is functionally useless but for what I meant to communicate - that people are worth more or less over time due to lack of complete growth/degeneration of mental facilities and physical body (as in age).

What about other sapient beings do you consider on the same rights as human beings?(possible hipothetical question)

As sapience implies wisdom, which is a component of rational thought, sure. However, their value can be less or greater when compared to another person.

I was talking about rights, not talking about value, to me any definition that gives a lower value to all sapient beings in comparison to other is abhorrent

Rights are only accorded to those who can understand them or given to a third party in lieu of that individual whom will take them back when they can understand them. Sapient animals who cannot understand are accorded no rights - the welfare of those animals however falls to their human guardians as the welfare responsibilities would fall to the parents of a severely mentally disabled child.

[Ashendant]

But now it seems that you have abandoned the idea of potentiality for a standard of comparing the actual achieved level or current level of development. The latter seems much different than the former and the analysis for each would probably give different results.

As we cannot know the future, nor precisely chart out the actual worth of a human being at any time, this graph is functionally useless but for what I meant to communicate - that people are worth more or less over time due to lack of complete growth/degeneration of mental facilities and physical body (as in age).

What about other sapient beings do you consider on the same rights as human beings?(possible hipothetical question)

As sapience implies wisdom, which is a component of rational thought, sure. However, their value can be less or greater when compared to another person.

I was talking about rights, not talking about value, to me any definition that gives a lower value to all sapient beings in comparison to other is abhorrent

Rights are only accorded to those who can understand them or given to a third party in lieu of that individual whom will take them back when they can understand them. Sapient animals who cannot understand are accorded no rights - the welfare of those animals however falls to their human guardians as the welfare responsibilities would fall to the parents of a severely mentally disabled child.

You are aware that the existence of sapient animals that aren't human are only suppositions(dolphins make a surprising good argument)

[Violet]

I apologize for the delay 0.o

First off, with respect to EvidenceVsFaith and Saerules on the beginning statement of the current quote post (see the hidden part below), the clear intent of the phrase "Well - once it is no longer a foetus I would think it would be ethically wrong to end the newly born baby's life for the same reason(s) as it would be to end mine" is to show that from the perspective of another affecting the one, in this case EvF or the newborn, it is unethical and immoral to destroy the one's life without their consent if they bear the capacity, potentiality or have a third party with the same faculties acting in their place as guardian to act as the means of granting consent.

When an organism is incapable of making present decisions by virtue not of body but of mind or lack thereof, it falls to the legal guardian to make the decision. This is a well established area in law and is commonly accepted. 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.

I somewhat question 2 things in the above two paragraphs. Firstly: how does 'capacity' (for granting consent?), 'potentiality' (that it might grant consent eventually?), or an extrapersonal value of consent assigned to a thing necessarily make it 'unethical' or 'immoral' to kill said thing? Perhaps more simply: why does it matter that a thing consents or not?

Secondly: that a thing is established into law hardly means it is necessarily moral or immoral for all, or even most, of the people. In fact... the case can happen where a very small group of people is in power (such as oligarchy or monarchy), and assigns laws based on their beliefs, which are not shared by the masses (often lacking in the ability to make laws in such a system). Also... what matters it that a thing is is a person, is currently not (but 'soon' will be), or will never be a person? What makes 'people' something <sacred?> that need to be protected when it would be a largely negative choice to do so?

Basically: While I agree with your use of the potentiality argument... I do not agree (necessarily, though I do agree that it is perhaps often considered a factor... which is to further why i question it) that either A: a living thing's 'personness' applies when considering killing it, nor B: that killing people is necessarily immoral (or illegal)... and we might notice that some of us (humans) are particularly apt to do so in actions such as wars and stoning.

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. However, as the concept of rights are a non entity to an infant, it falls to the parent(s) to act as the legal intermediary, much as one may act as a legal intermediary for an unconscious or comatose individual. Please note that potentiality does not guarantee a mind will be developed, but it does guarantee a significant nonzero chance of that. Please note the usage of significant and non zero, as would fall under scientific and mathematical definitions. I must reiterate that the fetus at earlier stages has a fundamentally zero chance, by nature of limits and noting that an insignificant number close to zero is functionally zero, and therefore has no rights and no potentiality.

And why would a living thing (human or otherwise) automatically have rights upon existing? Also, could not the society choose to 'save' a baby that the parents declared not worth their time and resources? Further... in some societies (ie: Sparta), it was custom for the society to eradicate all of the male children that were 'clearly unfit', regardless of what the parent(s?) wanted (of course, their breeding system also does not reflect our own, so it very well could be that only the mother would have an opinion of the baby to keep it alive).

There are many ways in which it is not illegal to kill an infant human... wether without consent or not. Wether or not these ways apply to our current society is a matter of ethics, and does not appear to have anything to do with the economics and desires of the one(s?) who would be raising the infant(s). I am of the opinion that it is brutal and a waste of resources to carry a pregnancy to 'birth, only to kill the baby. However, humans have children like rabbits poop: whenever, wherever, and whatever the state of the food that's around. Or was that 'like rabbits eat'? I can never remember v_v

Which is why some related socialized things such as orphanages can be so very useful: they can make use of the otherwise unable to be cared for child

However, it does not end there. A parent, for example, may not willingly destroy their child, as one acting as a legal intermediary for an incapacitated individual may not simply pull a gun and shoot them. Only under extenuating circumstances may the right to end a life be granted, whether in best interests of the individual at hand (infant) or of a significant group of people. Killing an infant, say, to prevent many developed individuals from being killed by a bomb, is ethically permissable only as we note that there is potential for an infant to grow into an individual against the further stage developed group of individuals. However, as individuals age and die, the value judgement involved requires that one balance off the potential for a developed, thinking organism that has lived longer to live to the maximum age and continue developing as a thinking being with the potential of an infant to live and develop into a thinking organism. Therefore, one may make the value judgement of saving an infant over a group of terminally ill patients or elderly, as they are close to death and/or functionally stagnant for intellectual growth due to failing and aged biology.

I think it is hardly so clear cut as even that. A <desperate?> mother (who values her baby more than everything else in the world) might bomb several 'perfectly healthy and young' people to keep her baby alive (who otherwise would have killed her baby). All 'value judgements' are decided by individuals... and as such: some may decide that a single elderly individual might have much more to offer than ten infants

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:

I think that things can have potentials beyond their age and capacity to work... some people (such like presidents and kings) may have more value to you dead than alive... and some people are simply so talented in a field one values, that one might see more potential in a talented elderly individual than in hundreds of people moderately good with said talent. I rather think that we all think of things in regard to value... and this can include emotions, and may be done without our even realizing it. In example... you apparently value a thing's potential to think and live more than you value emotional attachments (which you appearently value quite little, if at all).

---

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. From the perspective of economics or the development of a thinking being, this is the most logical system to consider if a thinking being is considered absolutely valuable over nonthinking beings, in an equivalent comparison, and thinking beings increase and decrease in ability over time.

Equivalent comparison, to define, is matching a single individual or object from one category against a single individual or object of another. For cases with N individuals, it becomes between thinking beings:

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

However, d(developingThought)/dt can be correlated to real world value by analogy of economics, which accounts for the cheapness and expensieveness of human life throughout history, as a single being consumes an approximate amount of resources and produces an approximate value of work. When that is considered, it also makes sense that a single life has a real world resource value, and thus justifies the procedure of triage et al.

In addition, this system fully justifies the act of "pulling the plug" on comatose patients. Resource wars, however, are inherently wasteful through this system unless one belligerent can take control of a desired resource and begin monetizing it in such a way to offset the real world cost of human life, which is rather difficult as it takes time to monetize said resource and if an opponent can destabilize that operation long enough, the former will spend literal human resources at an unsustainable rate, further justifying this system as a simple, concise look at the laws or theorems that dictate the value of human life and anything connected to it.

This is not a philosophy paper by origin, but it is an aggregation of numerous papers on the bioethics of stem cells, abortion and human potentiality. If anything, I believe that this system at the core is cold, clear logic that accurately describes anything involved with the value of any thinking being with respect to the resources involved. After all, in business, time is money. One thing physics loves to note, energy is mass.

---

I don't necessarily disagree with the above... however I find your equation lacking for many of the nuances that can give individuals (and groups) more value than is seen from age and intellectual capacity alone. Indeed... an utterly stupid muscleman is more valuable in some areas of work than are hundreds of 'nerdy' Mensa members. Value isn't a thing that applies only to an individual... it also applies in the context of what said individual might be used for.

I don't think it is all that accurate... simple a system as it is, considering how many examples one can make (that can and do happen) where the value judgement under the system is off by huge quantities from how valuable an individual (or group) could be interpreted to be Indeed... one might understand that there can be no easily calculable standardization of 'what value is' for everyone, unless we all agree on exactly the same points as are relevant in whichever situation is being evaluated

---

Ah the differences between "sentient,sapient" and "sentient,non-sapient" life how interesting, all-or-most animals are sentient, humans are the only sapient being, with a few claims that cetaceans might be sapient, and some of hose arguments hold ground.

And let us not forget that the technologically advanced aliens (well... more so than us... v_v) would hardly consider us even remotely 'sapient'. It's an ignorant argument at best... and a speciesistic and egotistical argument as I commonly see it. v_v

So I'm going to comment that all sapient being should be respected as equals to humans(even if other examples are doubt, might as well say preparing for the future yes), sentient beings should be respected as being with emotions but not on the equal round as sapient beings, means that we can hunt and breed them for feeding, this only because it's necessary, with the ability to make meat in laboratory in the future(very-near future), this might kill the necessity to hunt and fish.
I said this to blow the argument that we are hypocrites for killing cows for food and not fetus and babies.

Even humans are not all equal, and do not (necessarily) deserve equal rights. We can hunt fellow humans for food as well... but do you know why I wouldn't? Because I do not like the taste of pig... and I am told it is not dissimilar to human Also, it is not 'necessary' to hunt and fish: we might like how cheap it is, and how it tastes, and some of us get money from doing it.

I agree with your argument about killing cows and not babies... as it is just silly to hold humans as something sacred v_v

Now I'll explain my argument about abortion.

The fetus is a parasite if unwanted, i mean unwanted as in after serious ponderation, not some state-of-shock claims, a fetus is the beginning of a human being but is not a human being, some people might argue that we should kill the baby no matter what after it has been killed, others say that we should never touch a fetus, as it is a human being, and both claim there isn't a drawn line when it's human or not, or define lines by the wrong parameter(when the heart starts beating),I AGREE WITH NEITHER, there is in fact a clear line when a baby can be judged as a human or not, it's called the brain and when the first electric reactions start in it, this makes it a sapient being that should be respected, in two exceptions, the baby is going to have a serious disease or cripple that the parents can't deal with, and the mother is in danger, that is my opinion on abortion.

State-of-shock decisions are decisions nonetheless. I think the thing can be judged as human immediately after conception: it only needs to grow a little bit before it starts crying and pooping its diapers now. v_v Also... why is sapience (hell... why is even sentience) so sacred in your eyes?

For someone else that doesn't know:
-Sentient-the ability to feel or perceive pain and pleasure.
-Sapient-the ability to think abstractly or have "Wisdom"

And how do either of these apply to a thing's status as killable?

---

But now it seems that you have abandoned the idea of potentiality for a standard of comparing the actual achieved level or current level of development. The latter seems much different than the former and the analysis for each would probably give different results.

As we cannot know the future, nor precisely chart out the actual worth of a human being at any time, this graph is functionally useless but for what I meant to communicate - that people are worth more or less over time due to lack of complete growth/degeneration of mental facilities and physical body (as in age).

Ahhh! So you meant it as an underlying system that runs undercurrent of the rest of a things value? In that case I wholly agree

[Ashendant]

Stuff...

Saerules i don't like you you're a people that disregards other people rights and advocates that killing other people is not immoral

I do not like you at all

[The Omnissiunt One]

Stuff...

Saerules i don't like you you're a people that disregards other people rights and advocates that killing other people is not immoral

I do not like you at all

Just because you disagree with her, that doesn't mean you should dislike her. This seems rather petty to me, and a sign of desperation perhaps...

[Autumnlicious]

I somewhat question 2 things in the above two paragraphs. Firstly: how does 'capacity' (for granting consent?), 'potentiality' (that it might grant consent eventually?), or an extrapersonal value of consent assigned to a thing necessarily make it 'unethical' or 'immoral' to kill said thing? Perhaps more simply: why does it matter that a thing consents or not?

As a society that is formed by our evolutionary impulses to be a social species and all the baggage that it entails, consent is clearly a required component of functioning with others. If one does actions against another's consent, then they risk damaging their relationship to that individual. Enough actions such as these will be recognized as aberrant by society and exterminated. Note that society is protecting itself from a fundamental destabilization of a "social contract" (term used loosely) knowingly or even unknowingly. An ideal society is stable and self rectifying - it is objectively the ideal model of a social grouping that resists and repairs corrupting influences such as conventional murder, abuse et al. If you compare our society as it is now to the societies of city states and early nations, you will find that their demise for many a time was precluded by periods of corruption, where persecuting minorities, holding slaves and generally behaving like self centered pillocks are identified by historians and cultural anthropologists as symptoms or even causes of the fall ; whereas modern societies are slightly more stable. Individuals of those olden times were far less educated by far fewer numbers than individuals today, which is why people like you, Sae, have less of a chance at being burned at a stake than receiving the required medical operations for free due to modern societies attempting to reach this ideal goal - the goal of a perfectly stable, self managing, self healing and self rectifying society, as our naturalistic impulses to receive the most resources et al for the least cost involves optimizing society to give us all a fair chance to compete at our maximum efficiency.

The very darwinian interests that have served us since the first cells divided upon this Earth and long after the our sun ignited drive our very base interests and are the foundation for our efficient minds, constantly looking to amass resources and spread.

Secondly: that a thing is established into law hardly means it is necessarily moral or immoral for all, or even most, of the people. In fact... the case can happen where a very small group of people is in power (such as oligarchy or monarchy), and assigns laws based on their beliefs, which are not shared by the masses (often lacking in the ability to make laws in such a system). Also... what matters it that a thing is is a person, is currently not (but 'soon' will be), or will never be a person? What makes 'people' something <sacred?> that need to be protected when it would be a largely negative choice to do so?

Morality is a sticky subject, no doubt. Most people I run into like to define their own morality or claim divine intervention. I disagree with those people as I believe in a form of objective morality as dictated by our evolutionary developments as a social species lies the basis for society. An unstable society eventually perishes - doesn't matter if they themselves consider some action or program to be morally allowed as the very inequalities formed by the former will destabilize, weaken it due to our very nature. Hence why Operation Valkyrie was not such a surprise - the diaries of the officers involved stated that German society was coming apart because of the war and Hitler's actions, so they resolved to try to exterminate him in an attempt to save what they considered was their very core nature. Even then, outside of what the Germans or even other nations chose to believe through ideology and selective views on reality, German society was breaking due to the inequalities forced upon the German people by the "ideal" bred German - if you have one group of people feeling or being suppressed or unequal, they will damage in some manner the host society at large. West Rome fell apart as their own economic engine of slaves imploded due to insufficient expansion and slave incursions - leaving it ripe for the taking by the very tribes that guarded it.

It may seem that I've not answered your question directly, but what I've done is lay out the foundations for an objective morality as the ideal stable, self repairing, etc, system as laid out by our evolution. Which will state what is sacred, etc,. The divine rule of Kings came to an end as education and economics allowed people to more efficiently take their feelings of inequality and express it in many aspects, as opposed to traditional violence.

Basically: While I agree with your use of the potentiality argument... I do not agree (necessarily, though I do agree that it is perhaps often considered a factor... which is to further why i question it) that either A: a living thing's 'personness' applies when considering killing it, nor B: that killing people is necessarily immoral (or illegal)... and we might notice that some of us (humans) are particularly apt to do so in actions such as wars and stoning.

I did not state that it was absolutely immoral - what I defined was a sliding scale of value as correlated with conventional/traditional morality. It is of my opinion that objective morality and laws to reflect such as is compatible with our evolution is the most optimized and most efficient and most stable of any potential system. And just because it is optimal doesn't mean that people won't do other things - savage actions like stoning are looked upon by today as fully barbaric. It saddens me that we (the US) or any other rather educated country do not flex our collective power and suppress those savage behaviors. But then again, it is far too easy for me to find a liberal willing to defend multiculturalism as a whole instead of focusing on our differences that do the most good and stamping out the ones that do harm. Don't think conservatives are safe from my wrath - they aren't ; I find them far too apt to fall back to emotional absolutes for deciding their actions instead of attempting to live as logical a life as possible. Stupid animals.

And why would a living thing (human or otherwise) automatically have rights upon existing? Also, could not the society choose to 'save' a baby that the parents declared not worth their time and resources? Further... in some societies (ie: Sparta), it was custom for the society to eradicate all of the male children that were 'clearly unfit', regardless of what the parent(s?) wanted (of course, their breeding system also does not reflect our own, so it very well could be that only the mother would have an opinion of the baby to keep it alive).

There are many ways in which it is not illegal to kill an infant human... wether without consent or not. Wether or not these ways apply to our current society is a matter of ethics, and does not appear to have anything to do with the economics and desires of the one(s?) who would be raising the infant(s). I am of the opinion that it is brutal and a waste of resources to carry a pregnancy to 'birth, only to kill the baby. However, humans have children like rabbits poop: whenever, wherever, and whatever the state of the food that's around. Or was that 'like rabbits eat'? I can never remember v_v

I did not state that a human being has rights upon existing as an absolute; I did state that those who can understand such rights are granted them and those who will develop into understanding those rights are granted them by proxy in lieu of their maturation to that state. Potential only comes into play as there are developing points at which a fetus would never develop a mind if halted (killed or left in a stasis of development) at many points, but when it becomes an infant, clearly that infant, if not damaged/hindered genetically, will develop that mind if properly cared for.

Often times when an infant cannot be raised and it is impossible to hand off, then it is ethically permissible to kill them, much like it is ethically permissible to kill someone trying to kill you, etc,. My system depends on value - for greater the value of one, then the judgements to be made increase dramatically in consideration and deliberation. It does not mean that one should then arbitrarily feel free to make actions to kill infants wholesale, but merely to guide the facts of the case to make as informed a decision as possible.

Which is why some related socialized things such as orphanages can be so very useful: they can make use of the otherwise unable to be cared for child

Of course.

I think it is hardly so clear cut as even that. A <desperate?> mother (who values her baby more than everything else in the world) might bomb several 'perfectly healthy and young' people to keep her baby alive (who otherwise would have killed her baby). All 'value judgements' are decided by individuals... and as such: some may decide that a single elderly individual might have much more to offer than ten infants

Once again, I will reiterate this as a form of guidelines, not an absolute system but a relative one decided case by case by rational beings. Irrational beings will make irrational decisions and should be marginalized and disavowed by any means necessary as the danger they pose to society, other and themselves is rather unthinkable as we cannot predict the future, only allay ourselves with possibilities and probabilities.

A desperate mother is in a state of irrationality by definition and should not be allowed to make any decisions, for the very act of killing many of similar potential to her own offspring is unequal, destroys too much value for one thing, etc,. I suppose that an infant of verified genius (read the infant IS a genius) is worth more than ten fully retarded infants and thus with respect to value could return equal or more, but the decision to make such would need to be made by rational individuals weighing all the options and potential to make an informed decision.

You'll find that informed consent is a major theme here too.

I think that things can have potentials beyond their age and capacity to work... some people (such like presidents and kings) may have more value to you dead than alive... and some people are simply so talented in a field one values, that one might see more potential in a talented elderly individual than in hundreds of people moderately good with said talent. I rather think that we all think of things in regard to value... and this can include emotions, and may be done without our even realizing it. In example... you apparently value a thing's potential to think and live more than you value emotional attachments (which you appearently value quite little, if at all).

Of course, the scales of the previous graph are mutable and once again form a guideline to trying to objectively weigh the worth and value of another. To keep as objective as possible, restraint of emotion is required lest it corrupt the very decision you are trying to make.

Emotions are not based in logic and hence are not defensible in this system, making it rather consistent and defensible.

Plus, while I value emotion, I value logic far, far more.

I don't necessarily disagree with the above... however I find your equation lacking for many of the nuances that can give individuals (and groups) more value than is seen from age and intellectual capacity alone. Indeed... an utterly stupid muscleman is more valuable in some areas of work than are hundreds of 'nerdy' Mensa members. Value isn't a thing that applies only to an individual... it also applies in the context of what said individual might be used for.

Indeed. Guidelines my dear. This is not an absolute system - I despise such as they are not flexible for all cases. Of course, it is easier to make decisions with an absolute scale for most of the time, but I see that as non optimal.

I don't think it is all that accurate... simple a system as it is, considering how many examples one can make (that can and do happen) where the value judgement under the system is off by huge quantities from how valuable an individual (or group) could be interpreted to be Indeed... one might understand that there can be no easily calculable standardization of 'what value is' for everyone, unless we all agree on exactly the same points as are relevant in whichever situation is being evaluated

---

Nothing ever worth doing was truly easy in the end run, only the appearance of ease. And I'd rather evaluate the entirety of a life, potential or not, before ever removing it, as we cannot return life, only take it. Perhaps a day will come that we can return life.

Ah the differences between "sentient,sapient" and "sentient,non-sapient" life how interesting, all-or-most animals are sentient, humans are the only sapient being, with a few claims that cetaceans might be sapient, and some of hose arguments hold ground.

And let us not forget that the technologically advanced aliens (well... more so than us... v_v) would hardly consider us even remotely 'sapient'. It's an ignorant argument at best... and a speciesistic and egotistical argument as I commonly see it. v_v

Nice that my system can be applied to anything that has sapience (wisdom/capacity to learn) - values are less or more in comparison to a human, all things relative but logically defensible.

Even humans are not all equal, and do not (necessarily) deserve equal rights. We can hunt fellow humans for food as well... but do you know why I wouldn't? Because I do not like the taste of pig... and I am told it is not dissimilar to human Also, it is not 'necessary' to hunt and fish: we might like how cheap it is, and how it tastes, and some of us get money from doing it.

I agree with your argument about killing cows and not babies... as it is just silly to hold humans as something sacred v_v

To true - the rights of the severely retarded should be restricted to what they understand and their care takers (I mean in SEVERE cases FYI) have the responsibilities of maintaining them much like one must maintain their pets. Just because it looks human doesn't mean it is.

Ahhh! So you meant it as an underlying system that runs undercurrent of the rest of a things value? In that case I wholly agree

We reach.