Hacker News Reader

One reason is that we can communicate with (most) other humans to establish the shared boundary in a way we cannot (as reliably?) with other life.

I make no particular claim here as to how this reason should be weighed against the various other reasons pulling in the various directions.

View on HN

How is that actually relevant though? Do your morals change when it comes to humans you cannot communicate with?

Historically, that seems pretty common

One of the things "morals" is is a negotiation with society about what should be construed as blameworthy. Potential participants in that negotiation may have different treatment without, as you said, it "rest[ing] completely on logical fallacies," which is why I brought it up.

I am not saying this makes up the entirety of my moral system, and I am explicitly (here) saying that a naive application does not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com