Speaking of apathy, I am at present trying to explain to a fellow commenter why it is morally wrong to take a person's life even if they are non-sentient. He is asking, what harm can it do? Here are the comments: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/09/39-years-over-million-medicaid-kids.html#comment-2282735162 Can you think of an answer for this guy - something that would help him understand? I was thinking along the lines of this article - justice, etc, in my answer. Would you approach it that way or not? PS: I hate running to people for help on this, but sometimes, it would be nice to have that backup.
Great question. There's a few different ways I might go about it. If the person thinks someone can't be harmed if they aren't consciously aware of the harm, I would offer them a clear case of harming someone when they're not aware of it. Imagine a beautiful actress is in a temporary coma at a hospital, and the night janitor sexually molests her one night. Imagine that he was careful not to cause injury, so the actress would be totally unaware of it when she wakes up in a few weeks. The question is, was she harmed? I think the answer is an obvious yes. But it's not because she's physically hurt or emotionally upset about it. It has something more to do with her human dignity being violated. If however the person is arguing that no harm is done with someone who has never been sentient is killed, I would go one of two ways. First, I might ask about a newborn born into a temporary coma. Imagine a baby is born into a temporary coma, and she's been in a coma during the entire pregnancy, but kept alive thanks to the mother's body. Medicine has advanced enough that the doctor confidently tells the parents the baby will wake up in one year, and everything will be normal at that point. It'll be a baby who's mentally at the place of a newborn, but with a one-year-old's body. Suppose that after six months the parents are tired of taking care of this baby at the NICU ward, and decide to euthanize it. Most people would agree that's wrong, but why? It can't be because the baby is sentient or has been in the past. There must be something else going on. I also sometimes reference Don Marquis' Future of Value argument. You can watch the last five minutes of this speech video for an explanation of that one: https://youtu.be/joaTrukxKag?t=33m17s I hope that helps!
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/09/39-years-over-million-medicaid-kids.html#comment-2282735162
Can you think of an answer for this guy - something that would help him understand?
I was thinking along the lines of this article - justice, etc, in my answer. Would you approach it that way or not?
PS: I hate running to people for help on this, but sometimes, it would be nice to have that backup.
If the person thinks someone can't be harmed if they aren't consciously aware of the harm, I would offer them a clear case of harming someone when they're not aware of it. Imagine a beautiful actress is in a temporary coma at a hospital, and the night janitor sexually molests her one night. Imagine that he was careful not to cause injury, so the actress would be totally unaware of it when she wakes up in a few weeks. The question is, was she harmed? I think the answer is an obvious yes. But it's not because she's physically hurt or emotionally upset about it. It has something more to do with her human dignity being violated.
If however the person is arguing that no harm is done with someone who has never been sentient is killed, I would go one of two ways.
First, I might ask about a newborn born into a temporary coma. Imagine a baby is born into a temporary coma, and she's been in a coma during the entire pregnancy, but kept alive thanks to the mother's body. Medicine has advanced enough that the doctor confidently tells the parents the baby will wake up in one year, and everything will be normal at that point. It'll be a baby who's mentally at the place of a newborn, but with a one-year-old's body. Suppose that after six months the parents are tired of taking care of this baby at the NICU ward, and decide to euthanize it. Most people would agree that's wrong, but why? It can't be because the baby is sentient or has been in the past. There must be something else going on.
I also sometimes reference Don Marquis' Future of Value argument. You can watch the last five minutes of this speech video for an explanation of that one: https://youtu.be/joaTrukxKag?t=33m17s
I hope that helps!