The ant doesn't feel pain, it just dies, just like the lobster.

So awareness is out.
pain/feeling/nervous system is out.

So would a good measure be the moment the baby takes it first gulp of air, breathes in, then lets our a cry? Once it takes that first breath and starts crying it is considered "alive in the world" breathing on its own.

?

There has to be something that determines when a baby has rights or is considered a human, or when its considered "wrong to kill it". If not, or if you cant think of any, then you could stretch it and say the baby doesnt have rights until hes 18.

For us commoners its a complex problem to solve.

The right answer would probably come from a Politician/Doctor/Philosopher.

From a politican? What do fucking politicians know about this? The only thing politicians know is what other people tell them. Philosophers look at things too abstractly. They're not after the truth, just after something that sounds wise, so I don't thrust them either.
The only people qualified to determine things like this would be specialized biologists or doctors.

Doctors could tell you the scientific argument.

Politicians could give the political one.

Philosophers could give you the philosophical.

There is more than just simply a scientific answer.

Yes morality comes into it, although I think opinion would definitly be divided.

Why should I care about the "political" or "philosphical" answer? They're not important. We're talking about human life here, not a football match.

But then isnt Humanity a philosophical issue? Oh wait, no its scientific. Or maybe political. See?

Yeah Derf is right in this one. Its like the question of GM crops. Morally it isn't a good idea sometimes.

Morality is bullshit.

Morality is most definately bullshit idd.

A little while ago, i conducted an experiment on another message board and asked a few general people too (Satis might remember, atleast i think it was Satis).

Basically i asked about 40 people 2 questions based on morality or ethics.

The first was something along the lines of:

'Would you sacrifice one persons life, for the life of one million others to be saved? If you fail to choose those million people will not be saved'

The results of this one was that there were about 35 votes saying yes and 5 saying no.

Then the other question (cunningly asked later) was:

'Supposing one man today has the answer to the AIDS cure inside his body. Supposing we need his body (and life) to find the cure, and he refuses to sacrifice it, should we forcefully sacrifice him in the name of science and humanity so that we can possibly save many millions of people?'

Now, the results of this one were of THE SAME MAJOROTY as the first question but flipped around totally in the opposite direction. That is, about 35 people said NO to forcefully sacrificing this man.

So there we have it, morality is a load of bullshit because people openly contradict themselves. They do so somewhere between ethical concept and ethical context. In other words, many people have open views and beliefs of things they call morals, but when they are confronted with a real life situation many of them forget about their morals or think theyre not suitable anymore.

Derf is actually correct.

Morals change according to the likes and dislikes of people. Whats bad for one person is good for another. Morals and the idea of "good and evil" are just projections of the intellect , the ego.

So you think morality depends on the society, personality and the time. You're a sophist then.
Can I ask then why there are some morals and ethics that seem to happen in all societies? People do not steal as they don't think they would like it to happen to them. Besides this if they get caught it means they will lose trust placed in them (please note this does not stop people that will steal as they ignore the ethics or morals). Would you like to be genetically altered without consent before you were born? Or would you prefer to have the option of adding improvements to yourself in later life? As a student in archaeology I have to considered the ethics of exhumation. Everytime a body is exhumed, archaeologists have to consider how to treat it with respect and whether they should actually remove it from the ground. Morality is also important as it is the one thing that is behind the concept of justice, if someone murdered someone for a reason such as an honour killing, mugging or anyother intent to kill without considering the person (deliberate murder that has been planned in other words) the morals of societies would hopefully (in a fair theoritical society) convict the person of murder and punish them for it. An example of this is the Shipman murders. this doctor deliberate abused his ethics as a doctor and murdered perhaps hundreds of eldery patients of his who had trust in him. Fortunely the state did convict him of 15 of the murders (these were the only proven cases at the time and it meant that he would not get out of prison alive) and justice was served. So it isn't bullshit as without morality or ethics people wouldn't have justice and the world would be a poorer and crueler place. in fact without them I would commit suicide.

There's morality and there's good reason. Humans are animals that live in herds. It sounds a little odd, but that's just the case. It would be stupid to steal from the herd or kill someone from the herd, because if you're found out and kicked out of the herd you're as good as dead. Off course in modern society people won't die when found out (bar death penalty, wich is another issue).
That's why most societies act in similar ways to things like theft or murder. And that has nothing to do with morality. Morality is common sense mixed with various religious beliefs.

definetley, morality is very dependent on alot of things.

In hardcore islamic areas, it's morally acceptable to beat a woman to death if she cheated on her husband. If the husband cheats on the wife, it's frowned on.

anyway, maybe I'm a sophist too, but morality evolves along with the rest of humanity.