Why is that a dichotomy? I'd say there were entities it was really bad to kill without informed consent, things it was slightly bad to kill, things it's not really at all bad to kill. Equally, I'd say there are things it's very meaningful to kill, things where it's not clear how meaningful it is to talk about killing them, things that almost certainly can't be killed in any meaningful sense.
There is a continuum with a healthy adult human at one end and a housebrick at the other. Between them are things like a brain-dead human, a healthy adult dolphin, a household pet, animals reared for meat, ants, ant colonies, trees, etc.
An interesting corner case I came up with in the pub a few weeks ago: suppose A is donating a kidney to B. The surgical team removes the live healthy kidney from A and transports it to B. However, while it's in transit, C comes along and destroys it. Have they committed actual bodily harm against anyone?
Even if categorising, I'd say your things v. people should actually include at least concepts, things, organisms, animals, sentient creatures, sapient creatures, humans, with different nuances of right and wrong applying at each stage.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-04 01:33 pm (UTC)There is a continuum with a healthy adult human at one end and a housebrick at the other. Between them are things like a brain-dead human, a healthy adult dolphin, a household pet, animals reared for meat, ants, ant colonies, trees, etc.
An interesting corner case I came up with in the pub a few weeks ago: suppose A is donating a kidney to B. The surgical team removes the live healthy kidney from A and transports it to B. However, while it's in transit, C comes along and destroys it. Have they committed actual bodily harm against anyone?
Even if categorising, I'd say your things v. people should actually include at least concepts, things, organisms, animals, sentient creatures, sapient creatures, humans, with different nuances of right and wrong applying at each stage.