It really makes no difference because the cells do have a full complement of DNA, but with different portions silenced. I believe what makes human life valuable lies in the mind, not merely in the DNA, anyway, though obviously that is a prerequisite for the formation of a conscious human.
So why does simply having a full complement of DNA matter? The silenced part obviously makes a difference between being part of a human and being a human.
I am trying to get you to at least realize that the zygote is a human. Even if you put no value on just being a human.
The zygote is a potential human being, but the tissue certainly is human.
That didn't answer the question at all. I asked if you agree that your argument for what we can do with human cells only works if you view the zygote as a potential human being instead of an actual one.
You're answer to that...(drumroll please)...is that the zygote is a potential human being. Um, okay. But if you thought it was an actual human being at that point, your argument wouldn't matter, right?
Let me try to explain further why your argument wouldn't work in this case. For the sake of your argument, I'll even assume that they can make any human cell into a zygote (not just similar to one - to simplify things). Your chain then looks like this "human cell"->zygote->"human with concsiousness". Since your value is on the last stage, all prior stages can be lumped into potentials for gaining value. But should value be placed on the second stage, the fact that the first can become the second doesn't matter because there is now the difference of potential vs. actual value at this stage instead. This is why mentioning that science can turn any human cell into a zygote (again - for the argument) only works if you don't put the value on the zygote in the first place.
Being | Define Being at Dictionary.com Definition 2. If somebody told you that we had found "alien beings," would they be talking about bacteria or something with consciousness? Definition 1 is invalid for this context because they're implying far more than something that is, that came into being. On the other hand, if they said, "alien life," they are being more ambiguous.
I don't really agree with what you think my assumptions would be on "alien beings" vs. "alien life". All you are saying is that you agree with definition number 2. But, like I said in the last post, this point doesn't matter - so I'll concede it.
Your position is not the default because consciousness is the only standard that can establish personhood of any meaningful sort. Simply being human, as in human cells that are part of a whole, are not meaningfully a complete human being any more than a body without the capacity for consciousness.
Exactly zero, no more. If you can't establish it as zero, then it has more value than a never-conscious ZEF.
Yes, the same rules would apply, and indeed that step would eventually be a good way to keep people alive longer as a source for replacement organs, provided it could be done without the establishment of consciousness.
Don't assume I'm comfortable with the fact that we kill animals for food.
Sort of, but the tragedy begins and builds as development goes on. If you're killing something for your own convenience, i.e. elective abortion, the tragedy level needs to be near nothing, and killing something without consciousness would be an example of a non-tragedy.
I believe I was wrong in declaring my position the default. That statement assumed that you developed consciousness as a marker for value based on humans having value and that marker would give humans the most value. Based on this post, I'm pretty sure that you are saying the consciousness holds the intrisic value, not being human, and humans simply get their value from it.
If that is the case, then our positions are equal and we need to make a case for each. Is intrisic value found in being human or in having consciousness? While there is a logical proof that intrisic value exists if value exists at all, I know of no way to prove where the intrisic value lies. If you do, be my guest. All we can do is try to present our position as the more reasonable one.
I believe that the intrisic value needs to lie in being a human because any other position will lead us down the slippery slope of abortion->euthanasia->genocide. All those things are rooted in classifying certain humans as not being "real" humans (in your case, a human but not a human being). In my system, all humans are valued equally and secondary value is established by what those humans value themselves. There are bound to be conflicts of weighing value vs. value but that would occur in any system. I'll have to address anything you see unreasonable in this system, as I am unlikely to think of many myself.
If we place this intrisic value instead on consciousness, there would be problems. First of all, since you talk about different levels of consciousness ("tragedy begins and builds as development goes on"), value would need to be given on a sliding scale and no additional weight given to being a human. And so, killing an infant or a mentally disabled person is no worse than killing many animals (better, in fact).
I assume that your marker for the level of consciousness is intelligence (correct me if I'm wrong). So really, a greater penalty should be had for killing someone who is smart. And do we just measure levels of consciousness with IQ tests? How do we know the level of tragedy that your possible death has built to?
And what is an example of something that has hit the most basic level of consciousness? Do instects have it? What counts as experiencing something?
Basically, how can we use levels of consciousness if we can't determine what they are. Even the most basic level you want to move several weeks back to be safe - but how do you know it is safe enough? That further discoveries won't find the basic level to be based on something that develops earlier?
