[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

By age I meant future expected life span.

If that's the case, everyone should have an actuarial calculation done to compute their future life span, so as to demonstrate their life's value. That seems, intuitively, absurd, doesn't it?

Is it really your contention that the thing that makes a life valuable is how long it lasts? I would think most people would be more focused on what happens during the period a person is alive. If individual life has value, would you not value the life of someone who spends it dedicated to helping Doctors Without Borders, and lives 30 years, more than the life of a serial rapist who lives 30 years and a day?

Moreover, does this mean you're opposed to physician assisted dying?

I don’t think the edge cases have that much value they would be rare in any system.

You can't cop out by saying edge cases are rare. If, in the edge cases, your moral theory doesn't hold up, your moral theory is wrong. Especially if you're a deontologist. It's "act only on that maxim that you can at the same time consistently will should be a universal law", not a "universal law with exceptions in rare cases". That completely undermines the entire basis of your position.

The value in placing life as sacrosanct is that it prevents equivocation that BoLevi is pointing out where you value life’s that are close to you more than are further away. And just cover up selfish decision making with “moral reasoning”

Let's just keep it to family members. Do you think there is nothing relevant to be considered there? Do you think that people who believe they owe a greater moral duty to their immediate family - their children and spouse - than they do to strangers are wrong?

If we follow the utilitarian path we can kill the useless person to use the organs to save 10 people.

I'm not sure why you mention utilitarianism at the end? Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems clear that you don't believe that's the correct moral theory so I don't know why you'd bring it up.