That definition simply sets a class of beings defined by what you’ve said. It doesn’t necessarily mean they have ultimate value any more than my defining rocks as sedimentary means they have ultimate value.
You’ll also want to define “value”… there is potential value and actual value… Value can be subjective most of the time.
By the way, would you like the scientific definition of a primate? It’s a bit complicated… this one might miss a thing or two…
That was a very detailed scientific
description of what are considered “primates”, but of course classification, like your notion of value, is fairly subjective. Life is so full of variation, all our scientific classifications must admit exceptions, so I suppose every biological classification must begin with “generally…”
As to subjective value, there is a general consensus amongst human beings that human-life has tremendous value, that each individual is irreplaceable, even if the functions an individual performs for us could be accomplished by another. There also seems to be an accepted sense of
innate human rights even though the nature of those “rights” is debatable - each individual can disagree with the notion of human-rights or human-value, but I think the general consensus is there. The point here is to prevent obfuscation of “facts” by demanding that the rights currently being generally ascribed to “human beings” (e.g. life, liberty, etc.) be ascribed to at least ALL human beings and not only those strong/able enough to speak up and defend themselves. The opposition (mostly) realizes the arbitrariness of its ascriptions, but instead of challenging human-value and human-rights, since these are generally accepted, they seek to confuse the issue with the philosophical notion of “personhood” which really simply means “like me”.
You are right, the debate ought to be about whether human-life has intrinsic value and who says so; and what “rights” should (for now) be attributed to which humans under which circumstances, and what the penalties for transgression ought to be - e.g. should women have a right to vote, should the wealthy be forced to support the poor, how much freedom should people be allowed to exercise, what authority should be allowed to parents, does a pregnant woman have a
right to end the life of the voiceless/defenseless human being growing in her womb, do parents have the right to end the life of their child (up to what age?), does a human have the right to demand assistance in suicide, does another have the right to assist in the suicide, does the state have the authority to execute any human being…?
This debate is one of morality. To a theist, moral authority comes from God, and His followers seek to know His mind on such matters and practice what they believe is His will in society at large. For this they refer to Holy Scripture (e.g. the Bible) and millennia of logical/philosophical/theological investigation handed down through history, as well as their own consciences.
To an atheist, morality is a philosophical construct, moral authority is a misnomer, and the real question is one of
power. If the power lay in the hands of the military, then they or their leader are the “moral authority”; if it lay in the hands of a democratic people, then the majority or those who represent them are the “moral authority”. The “moral authority” is the one who can
enforce his notion of right vs wrong (i.e. get others to believe it, or himself if he is alone).
Thoughts?
