|
In recent history, we have recognized the moral significance of groups that have less power. This has happened (and is currently happening) for black people (and people of color in general), children, women, LGBTQ people, animals that are "like us" (such as elephants and chimpanzees), animals that are our companions (like dogs and cats), and other groups that have been and are currently discriminated against. The pattern that I see is that society is giving moral value to groups that have less power; groups that we have historically harmed without thought. We must define "group" though, because obviously the most powerless things on this planet are plants and inanimate, nonliving objects. And it would be very short-sighted to define "group" as "everything that society currently gives moral value, i.e. all humans and an arbitrary subset of animals". I define "group" as persons that can feel emotion (not necessarily human emotion), have some sense of their environments, and have some sense of desire. In short, our "group" includes all sentient beings. If we follow this line of thought, it feels obvious that all sentient beings will be recognized as valuable. And that the question is not "if", but "when". I want to address your counter example: > This would enable full legalization of humane practices like assisted death for the heavily disabled and terminally ill, and might open the doors again for experimenting on humans to move medicine forward. As a society, we believe that a moral being does not have the right to take their own life. It doesn't say anything about who is or isn't a moral being, which is what I am addressing. The counter example you were looking for was a society where all humans had no moral value. If humans have no moral value, then it does not matter if a human kills themselves, because it also doesn't matter if humans kill and harm each other. Disclaimer: I have lived my entire life in the United States. When I say "society", I usually mean "the west". |