Ya know, this argument just does not work. For one, "valuing human life" per se is not a universal moral value at all. The Romans ans Aztecs weren't really big on it. Secondly, in addition to being human, you are also male, white, Australian, a conscious being, of such and such age, heterosexual, a being occupying space and time, an English speaker, existing in the 21st century, of such and such a weight, and a think the quantity of which is 1. How come "human" is the qualifying distinction?
Whatever "human" is. It's sort of hard to find a trait shared by all humans that leaves out all other animals.
> On Apr 16, 2009, at 1:52 PM, Bill Bartlett wrote:
> believe in, or resembling you, which is a bit arbitrary.
> >
> > My "criteria" (I assume you mean basis) for valuing
> human life is that I am human life and I value my life. So
> as other people will tend to also value human life and
> incidentally they will value my life, I selfishly espouse
> that as a moral principle. I'm quite certain that this is
> the material basis of this moral principle and that all
> moral principles have a material basis.