OT "Dad! It's back!" 90

"Being," or "living"? If the latter, then it's really no answer to the question; you would essentially be saying that "life deserves consideration because it is living." But if mere "being" suffices to warrant moral consideration, then would you also be opposed to, say, crushing a rock? The rock exists. It possesses a state of "being."

Although I suspect what you actually meant was "being" as it implies a state of awareness of one's own existence. But if that is the case, then the question of whether different sorts of organisms possess the quality to differing degrees (and so are more or less worthy of moral consideration) takes on greater importance. It seems to be very clear that some organisms DO have greater senses of awareness or individuality than others; a dog or a horse, for instance, certainly gives the appearance of being much more aware of its own existence and sense of self than, say, an ant or a starfish. So if you are faced with a choice of, say, saving a dog or a horse, vs. saving an ant or a starfish (and we are talking about individuals here, not species), is it not justifiable to give preference to the dog or the horse? Why or why not?

But this can be said of every physical object in the Universe, living or not, animate or not. And yet we are faced with the undeniable fact that life itself generally requires the destruction of other life, and so choices of this nature MUST be made. The "each individual has unique qualities and their own place" argument doesn't seem to provide much in the way of guidance as to how these choices should be made.

Bob M.