Most people don't value human life in proportion to intelligence. You can certainly construct an ethical framework with various thresholds, but my point is that the actual rules in place today reflect a regulatory equilibrium rather than a self-consistent moral philosophy. Most sensible philosophies will consider at least some modern accepted practices to be morally reprehensible.
> but my point is that the actual rules in place today reflect a regulatory equilibrium rather than a self-consistent moral philosophy
I guess since people's morals are so varied, it's too hard to agree on a self-consistent moral philosophy. As an extreme example, just look at cases where people will ensure the right for a child to be born, but then not ensure rights to continuing health/nutrition/education. Beyond outliers like that there's a spectrum of every kind of opinion
Makes sense to me. Why save someone's life if you're going to kick them right back out onto the street to die in some alley again?
You may not be surprised to hear I'm from a country with a strong social safety net (which I guess works because there is more consensus on life over liberty)
