so the fact that a convict might, by some notion of justice, deserve to be executed is not the salient point. the salient point is that our society is comfortable with rendering judgment upon the person regardless of what their deeds were. we agree that they have agency.
the moral distinction I'm pointing to is that an embryo has no agency and thus cannot be considered a moral actor (and therefore not blamed or praised) whereas a born human does have agency and can be considered a moral actor.
-
-
-
we don't unanimously agree about this w.r.t unborn fetuses. this is why there's pushback against pre-natal gene therapies that would increase intelligence but there isn't controversy about post-natal school programs that (nominally) increase intelligence.
-
this prejudice might not be a coherent position in our society and the irony of that is what I think bowser was pointing to with his original post. I kinda agree with that but was attempting to deconstruct an important cause of this prejudice.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.