Are you seriously suggesting that because the morula demonstrates a certain characteristic, that that is the "default position"? From that definition, the default position of humans is a lack of speech, lack of limbs, etc.
The default position is not the lowest common denominator, it is the one *chosen* or most often demonstrated, when there are multiple possibilities.
The fact is that you're not going to be asking a precognitive human being a question of values, you're not going to ask any creature who is not human, and you're not going to demand or expect an answer from someone who does not speak your language. There are certain givens in the scenario.
For humans, the default position is the possession of basically the same values - as you agreed yesterday - , self preservation, propagation, pleasure, etc.
Basic philosophy 101 and support for your own value statement shouldn't produce so much consternation. Each of the terms and precepts that I used were explained in the reference I gave. To save time, I suggested that you read the Spitzer website which explains the definition of values, "unconditional" and "ultimate Love."
Alisdair McIntyre discussed the cargo culture state of philosophical discourse at the end of the last milenium, but I believe that he agreed with Dr. Spitzer that careful definitions will allow discourse on ethics.
Very good. That is correct. The default position is lack of everything. All things develop over time. We start with nothing. That was, is, and depending on skull thickness, will continue to be the point.
The default position is not the lowest common denominator, it is the one *chosen* or most often demonstrated, when there are multiple possibilities.
Here's an idea--how about if *I* decide what *I* mean. Must I remind you of the original context? It is about burden of proof. Just like I can't be expected to assume as true every crack-pot theory that comes my way until I prove them false, I also cannot be expected to hold values for every possible person, place, thing, or idea in this universe pending my explanation for why I should NOT value them. Initially I have no idea what X is--I do not value X. Later I may have a passing peripheral experience with X--I still probably have no significant value for X. If you value X and you want me to value X too, then YOU must explain to ME why I should. That is, the burden is naturally upon you.
As for the specific example I responded to about valuing a fetus, there is no drive that automatically shifts the balance for all humans to value the life of the fetus over the other competing values. That is why there is no agreement on the issue. In fact, with humans there is no guarantee of any particular value hierarchy. A person can even come to value a thing more than his own life. The proper burden of discussion in the abortion debate would be to have a prolifer explain his value for a fetus and to have a prochoicer explain his value for the convience of the mother, for example.
For humans, the default position is the possession of basically the same values - as you agreed yesterday - , self preservation, propagation, pleasure, etc.
A creature capable of valuing things will have values stimulated by its biological drives. The default position is still NO values (and NO drives, for that matter). Even with drives, it takes a level of sensory development, cognitive ability, and experience to be able to form the concepts of those entities that will be valued. The burden is STILL upon the valuer not the person who lacks the value. Sure, if I say that I am indifferent about food or sex, then I am lying. However, if I say that I am indifferent about the Theory of Crux Dieto Conflagorum, then I may very well be telling you the truth, and it is ridiculous to pimp me for an explanation--I hold no value for it.
Basic philosophy 101 and support for your own value statement shouldn't produce so much consternation.
Bad analysis. Any consternation is due to frustration at repitition of the bleeding obvious.
To save time, I suggested that you read the Spitzer website which explains the definition of values, "unconditional" and "ultimate Love."
Maybe I'll take a look at it sometime when I'm in a more poetic and less analytic mood. Honestly though, the language you quoted strongly rings of a kind of new age mystical pychobabble. Sure, it is possible to ascribe meaningful, precise, and grounded definitions to any string, including nonsensical sounding ones like "infinite truth" or "ultimate love", but of all the rubbish I've read that started that way, it also ended that way. I need some kind of hook to indicate my time would be worthwhile. Sorry if that's too frank, but that's my experience. It's understanding that inspires me in this context, not flowery, emotive, or hyperbolic language.