#moral standing

"Take two beings, a rock and a human being. What is it about each such that it’s morally okay to destroy the rock in the process of procuring minerals but not okay to destroy a human being in the process of procuring an organ for transplantation?

This question delves into the issue of moral standing. To give an answer to this question is to give a theory of moral standing/personhood.  [....] Those beings that can’t be morally wronged have the moral status of having no (that is, zero) moral standing. Those beings that can be morally wronged have the moral status of having some moral standing. [....]

Why is the question of moral standing important?  Primarily, the question is important in the case of non-human animals and in the case of fetuses.

[....] let’s take a look at some various theories of what constitutes moral standing for a being. A first shot is the idea that being a human being is necessary and sufficient for being something with moral standing. Notice that according to this theory/definition, rocks are excluded, which is a good thing. But then this runs into the problem of excluding all non-human animals, even for example, primates like chimps and bonobos.

As such, the next theory motivated would be this:  A being/entity has moral standing (moral counts/can be morally wronged) if and only if it is living. But according to this theory, things like plants and viruses can be morally wronged. A virus has to be considered in our moral deliberations in considering whether or not to treat a disease, and because the viral entities have moral standing; well, this is counterintuitive, and indicates that with this theory, there is a problem of being too inclusive.

So, another theory to consider is one which excludes plants, viruses, and bacteria. This theory would be rationality. According to this theory, those who morally count would have rationality. But there are problems. Does a mouse possess rationality?  But even if one is comfortable with mice not having rationality, and thereby not counting morally, one might then have a problem with certain human beings who lack genuinely rational capacities.

As such, another way to go is the theory of souls. One might say that what morally counts is what has a soul; certain human beings might lack rationality, but they at least have a soul. What’s problematic with this theory of moral standing is that it posits an untestable/unobservable entity – namely, a soul. What prohibits a virus, or even a rock, from having a soul?  Notice that this objection to the soul theory of moral standing does not deny the existence of souls. Instead, it is that such a theory posits the existence of an entity that is not observable, and which there cannot be a test for its existence.

Another theory, which is not necessarily true and which is not unanimously accepted as true, is the sentience theory of moral standing. According to this theory, what gives something moral standing is that it is something that is sentient – that is, it is something that has experiences, and more specifically has experiences of pain and pleasure. With this theory, rocks and plants don’t have moral standing; mice and men do. One problem, though, is that many of us think that there is a moral difference between mice and men. According to this theory, there is no way to explain how although mice have moral standing, human beings are persons (Andrews, 1996). It appears that to do this, one would have to appeal to rationality/intelligence. But as discussed, there are problems with this.

Finally, there is another theory, intimately tied with sentience theory. We can safely say that most beings who experience pain and pleasure have an interest in the kinds of experiences that they have. There is, however, the possibility that there are beings who experience pain and pleasure but who don’t care about their experiences. So what should we say about those who care about their experiences?  Perhaps it is not their experiences that matter, but the fact that they care about their experiences. In that case, it looks like what matters morally is their caring about their experiences. As such, we should call this new theory “interest theory.”  A being/entity has moral standing if and only if it has interests (in virtue of caring about the experiences it has)."

My friends replied, sarcastically with : Oh, of course you're not.

After which, continuously reinforce their point.

As much as that might have been a joke; or said due to the fact I often make jokes about trivial matters to make life easier, I know I'm not a bad human being. 

I never do things to hurt people, and generally feel bad if I do something wrong or feel that I'm putting somebody out by saying what I'm saying. I have feelings, and if you ever need somebody you are more than welcome to come to me. Most of the time, I can empathize and I'll always look at things from different points of view to make sure I am not being biased or unreasonable.

Despite the fact there are times when I can feel many negatives for myself - I can know that I am not a bad person, and that is something I really like about myself.

I am slightly ashamed to admit that I've fan-girled out before. A few times, actually. I'm not a full fledged fan girl who bursts into tears whenever they see anything relevant to their particular obsession, I'm not even really obsessed with anything, but I have had some tingly moments of awesome where I just couldn't contain a squeal of joy.

It's a weakness. I'm working on it.

The only times I ever fan-girl out are when an anime/manga character does something particularly awesome/adorable/bad-ass and I can't help but watch/read that particular part over a couple of times or Robert Downey Jr. is involved.

He just has two of the best characters ever.

Iron Man.

I don't watch TV much but out of the few actors I can name, he is the best person I can think of to play Iron Man. He just has that conceited air about him. It's perfect.

Sherlock Holmes.

I have a strong love for Sherlock Holmes. I'm not talking about Robert Downey Jr. playing as Sherlock, I'm talking Sherlock. The proper Sherlock. I love the books. He is by far, one of my favourite characters from a book. But Robert Downey Jr. portrayed him awesomely and thus, my love for Sherlock grew that little bit more.

I thought I'd share this with you all since I'm in the middle of watching Iron Man 2, it's a really, really good movie. I've noticed two or three mistakes in the movie - when I say 'mistakes' I mean that when the frame has changed, the empty glass has magically been filled with water. Nothing major, just a very minute detail that annoyed me a little. But the movie is really good so I could easily look past it and watch it again.

But the movie and Robert Downey Jr. got me thinking about how Tony Stark is a genius, Sherlock Holmes is a genius, L is a genius, Light is a genius, Ichinose is a genius, etc.

I wanna be a genius.

I would love to be a genius.

Hell, I would take being a prodigy for God's sake.

I know they must have it hard - real-life geniuses, that is - because at my schools, if you showed the slightest hint of being smarter than what someone classified as normal, you were either made fun of or they tried to bribe you to give them your answers for the maths class starting in ten minutes.

Sometimes both at the same time.

But I personally think that the positives far outweigh the negatives.

I love learning anything in particular. I don't really like people all that much. I want to do something good for the world.

But I haven't got the brain power for it.

This fact has always upset me a little. I have a goal of being a vet. Of being someone who needs to be freakin' smart.

All that pretty much means nothing if I can't get there due to lack of smartitude. 

I think my moral standard is pretty much where it needs to be to do this job. I rarely get angry when I'm around animals, and 90% of the time that I am angry, I'm angry at myself for not being able to figure out something involving said animals.

I think my drive is there to be a vet as well. I'm determined. 'I'm more than determined. I need to do this job.' I believe this with all of my heart.

But I'm not smart enough.

I don't think there could be anything more heart-breaking for me than to get to the end of this year and find out I can't get into the university.

Or worse, get to the end of my five years in university and find out I suck at my job. The job that, by that point, I would have worked eighteen years for.

There are far worse things in the world than this, but in my world, there is no worse scenario than that.

THE LIE: Former President Jimmy Carter Says Obama Has Restored America’s Standing In The World.

THE REALITY: New Polling Shows Global Opinion Of Obama’s International Policies “Has Declined Dramatically Since 2009.”