Yes, both. Empathy is based on what the thing is.Quote:
Expound on graph one please because I am critiquing the process (to my understanding of it): you evaluate worth based on your ability to empathize, no? Or something's ability to demonstrate a requisite level of intelligence or functioning? Is that not the process per your last few paragraphs?
I think that's a good question. I'm only making declarations about things which I'm confident do not have any sort of cognition or any of the properties I care about. In other words, I think my stance is extremely cautious. I don't feel comfortable talking about when consciousness emerges or anything like that. Once the hardware is present I'm much less certain. I'm afraid of the gray area, so I don't go there. That's why I mostly talk about zygotes and early embryos, not fetuses.Quote:
Since you don't see the connection to eugenics, what gives you comfort that you have the ability to adequately discern what does and doesn't have value? I mean I'm sure a sociopath would say the same thing (just can't empathize with others) yet you're not a sociopath. However you feel the ability to confidently express what is and isn't of worth based on arbitrary standards (brain activity at a certain level, ability to be independent, etc.). Where does that come from? And where does it lead?
You misinterpreted my position a bit in the last part of your post. I don't think the distinctions I'm making are arbitrary. I'm explicitly declining to evaluate the part which is arbitrary (where consciousness emerges), because I'm afraid to make a mistake. I think there is a period where it's clearly fine to kill an embryo, then a gray area, then a period where it's clearly not fine.
Eugenics is "the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable". Disallowing relatives from reproducing fits this and is therefore eugenics.Quote:
Banning incest doesn't fall under the traditional eugenics umbrella. Tying quality of life to worthiness to live definitely does though, as you're not the person living the life. What gives you the confidence to say that someone with a genetic disease has no desire to be born and live with it? I know people who died in their 40s and 50s from ALS that had families and children and enjoyed their life, despite how it ended. I think (and hope) life experience will change your outlook on this. There is more to living than not having health problems or being unwanted by a parent.
This part contains major misunderstandings, which again hinges on whether my position is arbitrary. I am confident that a zygote has no desires at all, including being born in a particular state. I think discarding defective zygotes is morally equivalent to discarding defective sperm. No big deal. Maybe the sperm want to find the egg. Maybe the zygote wants to develop. Maybe coronavirus loves killing. I can't say for sure, but I'm comfortable discounting these possibilities.
The other assumption I'm making is that disabilities are bad, and it would be better if people didn't have them. I'm willing to defend this contention.