Is it morally permissible to kill all zygotes then? — NOS4A2

If it's the mothers' desires, yes.

Fine, we should kill zygotes if and only if no mother is present and doing so will stop a train from running over babies. Now, absent those conditions, is it right or wrong to kill zygotes? — NOS4A2

It's neither right nor wrong. It's morally neutral. We've established from the trolley problem that five zygotes deserve less moral consideration than one baby. And I'll go so far as to say that one million zygotes deserve less moral consideration than one baby. Each individual zygote deserves negligible moral consideration, and certainly when compared to the moral consideration of a woman being forced to carry to term and birth a child.

Flies don’t develop into human beings. — NOS4A2

Develop into human beings. Interesting that you now phrase it that way.

But also, why does it matter? Why is it wrong to kill something that develops into a human being but not wrong to kill a fly?

If they are out of the womb they are already dead. Convenient. — NOS4A2

As I said, in the scenario under consideration these are living zygotes growing inside an artificial womb. When we have to choose between doing nothing and letting one baby die or doing something that causes five zygotes to die, what should we do? We should do the thing that causes five zygotes to die because they do not deserve anything like the same kind of moral consideration as a baby.

All of which are biological. — NOS4A2

And? It's not the biological stuff that's morally relevant. Ants are biological. Flies are biological. So what?

Isn’t that convenient. Remove the one act under discussion from the argument entirely. — NOS4A2

We're talking about whether or not it is wrong to kill zygotes. The manner in which the zygotes are killed is presumably irrelevant.

Your deflection is telling.

You believe there are just two sets of genes swimming around in there? — NOS4A2

There are 46 DNA molecules, each coiled around proteins, contained within cytoplasm and a cell membrane.

To kill a zygote you abort it. Go give abortions. — NOS4A2

We're considering a variation of the trolley problem as explained here:

1. If you don't change the track then five babies die. If you do then one baby dies. What do you do?
2. If you don't change the track then one baby dies. If you do then five zygotes die. What do you do?

We can assume, for the sake of argument, that we are technologically advanced and have developed artificial wombs within which the zygotes in question are growing.

I think that (1) proposes a moral dilemma but that (2) doesn't. It is quite clear that we ought take positive action to sacrifice the zygotes to save the baby, and even though the zygotes are more numerous.

Single-celled organisms, even if capable of growing into something like us, simply do not deserve remotely the same kind of (or even any) moral consideration.

Try it with the human zygotes still in their mother, where they are generally found. For some reason you removed the mother entirely. — NOS4A2

Then the moral dilemma concerns whether to kill a baby or an adult. We're concerned with whether to kill a baby or a zygote. So for the sake of argument we can assume that the zygote is not growing inside a woman but an artificial womb.

Intentionally sacrificing one, five, or even a million zygotes to save one baby is not a dilemma at all. We obviously should.

This is a misrepresentation. I never said nor implied biology was equal to or less than genetics. — NOS4A2

You said "this biology ... is present from the very beginning ... of every human being’s life." Except it's not. The genetics is present but the morphology and physiology aren't.

I don't know one Republican that says that if prior birth control (condoms, the pill, etc.) failed that the woman should be forced to carry through with her pregnancy. — Harry Hindu

Well, there are GOP lawmakers who oppose morning after pills.

They are persons. — Bob Ross

What do (all) innocent human beings have (that other organisms don't have?) that entails that they are persons?

So you would let a child die rather than save their life by sacrificing/using zygote(s)? I think your position is absurd. I also don't think you would let the child die, if push came to shove. — RogueAI

Extending this, here are two trolley problems:

1. If you don't change the track then five babies die. If you do then one baby dies. What do you do?
2. If you don't change the track then one baby dies. If you do then five zygotes die. What do you do?

I don't think there's any moral dilemma with (2), whereas there is with (1), showing the obvious moral difference between killing a baby and killing a zygote. We ought change the track and let five zygotes die to save the baby.

Notice that I've made (2) even more extreme by requiring an active choice that kills more things, whereas traditionally the active choice kills fewer. That's how little zygotes matter.

it is always wrong to directly intentionally kill an innocent human being — Bob Ross

What do (all) innocent human beings have (that other organisms don't have?) that entails this conclusion?

This biology, and all material required to develop it, is present from the very beginning to the very end of every human being’s life — NOS4A2

This is false. There's more to biology than genetics – there's morphology and physiology – and more than the stuff already contained within a zygote is required for it to grow into a baby (e.g. nutrients from the mother).

If it's the 1st term then it isn't contingent on anything, because there's no term prior for it to depend on. — Hallucinogen

You’re equivocating.

That something exists without having being caused to exist by something else does not entail that this thing necessarily exists, and it certainly doesn’t entail that this thing is eternal and omnipotent.

The universe is the product of an initial singularity and inflation. This initial singularity may have come into existence by accident/chance, and even if its existence was “necessary” it certainly isn’t anything like God.

No, I'm not. You're trying to equivocate between a series of presidents and the series of existence as a whole. — Hallucinogen

I am explaining that "if some A is the nth term then some B must have been the 1st term" does not entail "the 1st term necessarily exists (and is omnipotent)".

It doesn't make a difference what A and B are. The logic is a non sequitur whether we are talking about Presidential terms or "the series of existence as a whole".

Then you wouldn't be an atheist about a necessary entity and you wouldn't commit the contradiction. — Hallucinogen

You are misusing the term "atheist". An atheist is someone who believes that no deities exist.

That's false, a 1st term of the universe isn't contingent. — Hallucinogen

You're begging the question. Here are two scenarios:

1. A 1st term is necessary. A 2nd and 3rd term follow.
2. A 1st term is contingent. A 2nd and 3rd term follow.

Given that a 2nd and 3rd term exist in both scenarios you cannot use the existence of a 2nd and 3rd term to prove that the 1st term is necessary. This is the fallacy that your argument commits.

In my view it is, but my view doesn't change the fact that most God concepts are omnipotent and eternal. — Hallucinogen

Even if some X is necessary and even if this X is "omnipotent" and eternal it does not follow that this X is God. You are introducing properties unrelated to your argument.

As an atheist I could accept that there is some impersonal force – e.g. the union of electromagnetism, the strong force, the weak force, and gravity – that necessarily exists. I could even accept that this impersonal force is "omnipotent" and eternal. But it ain't God.

Something can do anything if everything is dependent on it.

...

Something exists forever if it isn't dependent on conditions. — Hallucinogen

These are non sequiturs.

And you are, again, equivocating. That a 2nd term depends on a 1st term to have existed does not entail that the 1st term must still exist. A clock must have been made by a clockmaker, but the clock doesn't cease to exist after the clockmaker dies.

Your conclusion, that there is a God that necessarily exists, simply isn't proven by the claim that causation is not an infinite regress.

None of that matters. Just assume that the premise is true. The conclusion is still (superficially) counterintuitive.

The issue concerns making sense of the argument's validity, not proving or disproving its soundness.

Something's eternal if it isn't dependent on conditions. Contingency means to have a condtional dependency, so a non-contingent entity is eternal.
Something's omnipotent if everything stands in dependency to it. Everything in a contingent series is dependent on the non-contingent member of the series, so it is omnipotent. — Hallucinogen

Something is eternal if it exists forever. Something is omnipotent if it can do anything. The one does not entail the other. And neither entails nor is entailed by necessity.

And I also suspect there's more to your "necessary being" than just being eternal and omnipotent. Is it conscious with a will of its own? Or is it just some mindless thing that maintains and shapes the material world, perhaps the hypothetical single force that unites electromagnetism, the strong force, the weak force, and gravity? An atheist can accept this latter thing.

The example of the Presidents doesn't answer my question. The 1st President is contingent because it is an nth term of the universe, and it is necessary for there to be a 2nd President. It's just not metaphysically necessary. — Hallucinogen

A 2nd President does not entail that a 1st President is metaphysically necessary. A 2nd term of the universe does not entail that a 1st term of the universe is metaphysically necessary.

Perhaps the 1st term of the universe was an accident, and because of that accident there was also a 2nd term, a 3rd term, and so on. Those 2nd and 3rd terms do not retroactively entail that the 1st term wasn't an accident.

So you are saying that your prayers might still be answered even if God does not exist? So that an atheist could be justified in praying? — Leontiskos

There are all sorts of hypothetical entities that could answer prayers; devils, angels, fairies, wizards, extremely advanced aliens, the universe branching into a new timeline in accordance to one's will, etc. There's no reason to believe that it can only be the working of some sort of monotheistic creator deity (and certainly no reason to believe that it can only be the working of a specific religion's deity).

"A group of organisms that share similar physical and genetic characteristics and are capable of interbreeding to produce viable offspring". — Bob Ross

A zygote is not physically similar to me.

When, for you, does an organism become a member of its species? — Bob Ross

There is no point. It’s like asking when does a species branch into two? There’s just a bunch or organic matter arranged together and behaving in certain ways, and then for practical reasons we group collections of similar organic matter together under a single name.

There was never a point where a non-Homo sapiens simply gave birth to a Homo sapiens. The evolution into Homo sapiens was a gradual process where we can say at the one extreme that it wasn’t human and at the other extreme it is but then in between there’s a grey, ambiguous area and any attempt at a definitive classification is arbitrary.

In order for X to be a member of the set of all existent square blocks, it must be a square block. — Bob Ross

And to explain what it means to be a square block you describe the relevant geometry.

How do you explain what it means to be a Homo sapiens?

My "parlor trick" includes the translation. The formalism is not very difficult to understand. What's fun is the way that the translation is intuitive. Hanover's difficulty is this, "Why did we say, 'So I don't pray'?" The explanations I have been giving answer that question and give an account of why the translation is intuitive. — Leontiskos

FYI I edited my post hours ago. Weird that you're seeing the old version.

I've corrected what I was trying to say.

See also this that might be even clearer.

You do have a mammary gland though. — Benkei

Well, I do, but those with congenital amazia don't. I assume they're still mammals.

The argument is valid but its first premise is false (or at least hasn't been proven to be true).

then that is a valid disproof of the logic within the OP — Hanover

There isn't a problem with the logic. The problem is that the premise isn't saying what it superficially seems to be saying.

"it is not the case that if I pray then it will be answered" does not mean "if I pray then it will not be answered"; it means "I pray and it is not answered".

So the argument actually amounts to "if I do not pray then God exists, I do not pray, therefore God exists."

Formally:

¬G → ¬(P → A)
∴ ¬G → P
∴ ¬P → G
¬P
∴ G

So no, nice try but nobody has ever used the term for any animal that doesn't produce milk and they never will. — Benkei

I don't produce milk?

It's much simpler than that.

¬(P → A) ↔ (P ∧ ¬A), so ¬G → ¬(P → A) means ¬G → (P ∧ ¬A).

The argument is actually "if God does not exist then I pray [and it isn't answered], I don't pray, therefore God exists".

¬G → (P → ¬A) is a more appropriate premise and with it the conclusion no longer follows.

It isn’t. It does not have any means of reproducing, is not predisposed to functioning on its own, has no metabolism, etc. etc. etc. Given the diversity of life, "organism" is a tricky word to pin down, but an organ doesn't have a single quality of an organism. — NOS4A2

A placenta is no less alive than a zygote.

If twin A was the same individual as the zygote and if twin B was the same individual as the zygote then twin A was the same individual as twin B.

Twin A was the same individual as twin B.

Therefore twin A was the same individual as the zygote and/or twin B was the same individual as the zygote. — NOS4A2

"Was" and "is" do not mean the same thing. Each twin was a zygote. But your conclusion that the zygote "will be the same particular entity, a human being, from fertilization onward" is both invalid and false. It cannot be the same particular entity as both twins that develop from it.

On the other side there are chimeras, where two zygotes fuse into one. To say that the eventual baby is the same individual/entity as both the zygotes that precede it is as nonsense as saying that a zygote is the same individual/entity as the sperm and the ovum.

The human body contains 78 organs, but with only 5 considered "vital": brain, heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys.

So let's take organs away, keeping the rest of the body alive through artificial means. First the skeleton, then the skin, and then everything else until just the vital organs are left. Still human? Still the same individual?

Now let's remove the heart, lungs, liver, and/or kidneys (and again, keeping whatever is left alive through artificial means). Still human? Still the same individual? And to Count Timothy: would a living brain on its own count as an organism, or just an organ?

But what if rather than removing the heart, lungs, liver, and/or kidneys we remove the brain. Still human? Still the same individual?

I think there's certainly something special about the brain. Whereas removing other organs and keeping the remaining organs alive artificially doesn't count as killing the human/individual, removing the brain would. This is why I don't think it matters much if the foetus is killed before the brain has sufficiently developed.

One of these is not like the others; a placenta is an organ not an organism. A liver is likewise not an organism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So your definition of an organism is something like "two or more organs keeping each other alive" (although this doesn't account for single-celled organisms)?

A placenta is an organ of a living thing. — NOS4A2

And it is a living thing.

They were the same thing at an earlier stage in their development. It is no contradiction if C splits into A and B.

...

A used to be A, is my reasoning. It’s a continuum. A doesn’t switch identities at some arbitrary point. You’re the one positing B. — NOS4A2

If twin A is the same individual as the zygote and if twin B is the same individual as the zygote then twin A is the same individual as twin B.

Twin A is not the same individual as twin B.

Therefore twin A is not the same individual as the zygote and/or twin B is not the same individual as the zygote.

It just means that something is a proper whole with proper parts. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Why does a placenta not count as a "proper whole with proper parts"?

No lifeform is capable of sustaining itself in isolation, but obviously plants and animals are self-organizing and self-sustaining in ways that rocks, storm systems, stars, etc. are not. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, but let's take different forms of living organism; bacteria, grass, zygote, placenta, foetus. Which of these count as a "unity" and why only them?

Basically any living thing. — NOS4A2

A placenta is a living thing.

Sure it does. The facts indicate that they were both the same zygote. — NOS4A2

The zygote grew into them, but they are not the same thing, as proven by the fact that each twin is not the same thing as the other.

As it stands you're saying that A is the same individual as C, that B is the same individual as C, but that A is not the same individual as B. That's a contradiction.

And no human being was every a eukaryotic cell containing 24 distinct chromosomes? — NOS4A2

This is such an ambiguous question. Glass used to be sand, but sand isn't glass. Butterflies used to be caterpillars, but caterpillars aren't butterflies. My house used to be a pile of bricks, but that pile of bricks wasn't my house.

Your reasoning that "A used to be B, therefore A and B are the same individual" is fallacious. Identity doesn't work that way.

A placenta isn't a living organism. It's an organ. — NOS4A2

What do you think a living organism is?

But yes, an individual zygote can split into two individuals. It's why identical twins are identical, or mirror images of each other. In any case, both can trace their history and existence to the one zygote. — NOS4A2

Yes, but importantly each twin is not the same individual as the other and so they cannot both be the same individual as the zygote. Therefore either just one of them is the same individual as the zygote (which is special pleading) or neither is.

The fact that they can "trace their history and existence" to the zygote does not entail that they and the zygote are the same individual.

If not, then what is it? — NOS4A2

A eukaryotic cell containing (usually) 24 distinct chromosomes.

A member of a species has to be an organism, taken as a whole, of that species — Bob Ross

This is circular.

This is basic biology. It is a member of the human species if it that certain kind of animal: homo sapien. — Bob Ross

Well, I wouldn't say that homo sapiens are single-celled animals.

A placenta is an organ. A featus is not an organ. It has a substantial unity. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What is "substantial unity"? Why does it have moral relevance such that it's wrong to kill something with "substantial unity" (or at least some things; is it wrong to kill flies?) but not wrong to kill something without it?

and are capable of sustaining their own form — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm not sure what this means. Do you mean that it can survive on its own? Because a (young) foetus certainly can't. If it were that simple we'd just remove them without killing them and put them in an incubator.

A human zygote can grow into multiple different living organisms; an embryo, a placenta, and even a second embryo and a second placenta in the case of twins. You treating the zygote as being the same individual as (one of) these later organisms is simply a choice with no physical basis, much like the ship of Theseus.

And it still hasn’t been explained why it is wrong to kill (some of?) these organisms. If you just want to argue that it’s wrong to kill any living organism then there’s less of a problem, but as you specify that it’s wrong to kill humans you need to explain what distinguishes a human from a non-human (and a human from a human organ) and what it is that humans have and that non-humans (and human organs) don’t have that entails that it is wrong to kill humans but not wrong to kill non-humans (or human organs).

As it stands it seems to be that your argument rests on equivocation, ambiguity, and non sequiturs; something like “it’s wrong to kill human children, human children are human, therefore it’s wrong to kill humans, zygotes are human, therefore it’s wrong to kill zygotes.”

Well, I suppose that’s what my first post above does. The (valid) formal logic is an improper translation of the English language sentence.

The argument in Banno’s post is a link to a logic tree diagram that shows you why it’s valid.

I’d say that the embryo and the placenta are each their own thing, albeit connected by the umbilical cord. I wouldn’t consider any of these three things to individually be “the human”, and nor would I consider all three of them to collectively be “the human”.

But we can even drop consideration of “the human” for the moment and just consider the embryo. A zygote develops into a blastocyst, and then some of its cells develop into a placenta and some into an embryo.

To say that the placenta is part of the embryo rather than that the embryo is part of the placenta is special pleading.