You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

DanArmak comments on The Argument From Marginal Cases - Less Wrong Discussion

15 Post author: jkaufman 26 July 2013 01:30PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (55)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: DanArmak 28 July 2013 01:35:29PM 4 points [-]

My point was that this merely shifted the ground of debate. People began saying that blacks, women, etc. were "not really human" or "sub-human". Today there are those who think fetuses have the same moral rights as babies, and those who say fetuses are not "really human [individuals]". And so on.

In other words, it's a game of definitions and reference class tennis. You should taboo "members of H. Sapiens Sapiens" and specify how you really assign moral value to someone. Your definition should also work with outright non-, pre- and post-humans too, unless you're willing to say outright that anyone who can't breed with today's humans necessarily has zero moral worth.

Comment author: Baughn 28 July 2013 03:28:02PM 0 points [-]

Sure. That's a much better way to put it.