I’m aware of that, but since there is no inherent, conceptual difference between us and animals (the soul or right to rule them that religion says we have) it means we have to decide what it means to be valuable rather than just assuming we are and not thinking about it. How intelligent would an animal or machine have to be to have the same value we place on a human?
There are plenty of inherant differences between us and (non-human) animals; for example, we have the property of being human. The question is whether or not there are ethically significant differences, which is a completely different question.
You are a gene machine, but you are not merely a gene machine; you are not even ‘merely’ a gene machine.
I’m aware of that, but since there is no inherent, conceptual difference between us and animals (the soul or right to rule them that religion says we have) it means we have to decide what it means to be valuable rather than just assuming we are and not thinking about it. How intelligent would an animal or machine have to be to have the same value we place on a human?
How heavy would a statue need to be for it to be considered as pretty as the Mona Lisa?
There are plenty of inherant differences between us and (non-human) animals; for example, we have the property of being human. The question is whether or not there are ethically significant differences, which is a completely different question.
What’s the distinction between merely and ‘merely’?
Anyway, I’d go further and say that humans are wonderful gene machines.
“mere” was the scare-quoted usage in the original post. I wanted to emphasize that even weakening it with scare quotes wasn’t enough.
Delta seems to have edited it from from “merely” to “simply”. Not sure why, since they all mean exactly the same thing: roughly “I am using this sentence to claim something unsupported by its literal meaning”.
(Rather than “lullaby words”, I personally like to think of them as “alarm words”.)