What the 'meat paradox' reveals about moral decision making

Re:What the 'meat paradox' reveals about moral decision making by happytoexplain on Thursday February 07, 2019 @03:16PM (#19108146)

If sex had a chance to cause a honey bee to grow in one's body over 9 months and resulted in many years of a full commitment of one's life, mind, and resources, I don't think people who respect bees would be hypocritical in killing a bee. Conversely, babies have potential that animals do not, and humans have inherent value to us, both practically and psychologically, that animals do not, so I think it's not hypocritical for somebody who kills pigs to refrain from killing a baby.

No offense, seriously, but the analogy seems simplistic to the point where it needs some kind of complete rework to produce an interesting question.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What the 'meat paradox' reveals about moral decision making by humanrebar on Thursday February 07, 2019 @05:08PM (#19109077)

So, barring metaphysical axioms about the intrinsic worth of humanity, we measure worth by utility?

The utility answer resolves some of the tension, but it doesn't address what happens when an animal might have more utility than a human. What about protecting endangered rhinos versus viable fetuses with severe but nonterminal developmental issues?

Not really a rhetorical question, by the way, the Down's Syndrome population is way down and not because we cured Down's Syndrome.

[ Parent | on HN ]