I think I must have been unclear, since both you and wedrifid seemed to interpet the wrong thing. What I meant was that I don’t have a good definition for person, but no reasonable partial definition I can come up with includes babies.
How did I misinterpret? I read that you don’t include babies and I said that I do include babies. That’s (preference) disagreement, not a problem with interpretation.
This line gave me the impression that you thought I was saying I want my definition of “person”, for the moral calculus, to include things like “worthwhile”.Which was not what I was saying -
Intended as a tangential observation about my perceptions of people. (Some of them really are easier for me to model as objects running a machiavellian routine.)
How did I misinterpret? I read that you don’t include babies and I said that I do include babies. That’s (preference) disagreement, not a problem with interpretation.
Intended as a tangential observation about my perceptions of people. (Some of them really are easier for me to model as objects running a machiavellian routine.)