Not Choosing To Be Human

One of several reasons why discrimination like sexism is unjust and would be irrational even if there is no such thing as morality is that a person belongs to a gender or race without their wishes making it so.  Other reasons include the fact that it does not logically follow from having a certain kind of genitalia or skin color that one has intellectual or moral traits.  What one person, moreover, believes or does only pertains to them as individuals, not everyone else from their demographics.  If something if morally good or bad, it is the nature of the act/intention itself (as it relates to God's nature) that dictates whether it is evil, not the doer's gender, race, age, or nationality.  These are all separate but relevant reasons why the likes of sexism and racism is by logical necessity irrational and, if moral obligations exist, unjust in all of its forms.

It is still a major factor, though, that a person cannot will their gender or race or age to change, though the last of these three specific examples does change as time elapses.  Any of these multiple logical truths about gender (or race) and its irrelevance to worldview, human rights, talents, and personality already disproves the entirety of all possible sexism against men or women.  It is only being human and an individual that would be relevant to a person's philosophical standing or personality traits except where they yield to cultural idiocy.  Unless there is some sort of unprovable existence before one is conceived and this pre-conception consciousness that can choose to live as a human, however, there is nothing about being human that is voluntary either.

If it is irrational and unjust to treat, say, a man or a Hispanic person better or worse because of a factor they cannot will away, then how would it be any different to treat humans as better than other creatures simply because they are human?  None of these factors seem to be capable of being initially chosen, though an unverifiable, unfalsifiable pre-conception conscious existence would of course allow for such a choice.  Not even Christianity, which is far more "strange" in some ways than many Christians seem to understand (a tree that grants eternal life and a donkey that speaks are just two examples even aside from its very heavily nuanced metaphysics and epistemology), teaches or suggests this kind of existence.

Whether humanity or any type of being has moral value, of course, depends on whether there really are moral rights, which cannot exist without moral obligations, which cannot exist without a deity with a moral nature--the existence of the uncaused cause is not enough.  God exists as an uncaused cause regardless of the veracity of any specific religion, but if this being has no moral nature, then no human can have value (not that the uncaused cause having a moral nature means it must be a moral nature that is favorable to humanity).  If humans do not have value, they might not have chosen this status or their very existence as humans, but their gender or race would not change the amorality of reality.  Likewise, if humans do have value, then gender or race would not be a factor because they, for the reasons listed before, could not have anything to do with rationalistic ability or moral character.

The contrast between not choosing to be human and not choosing to be of a certain gender or race or nationality or physical appearance is a significant one when it comes to this issue.  It is a very precise irony that could take a lot of time and effort to realize, but it is connected with some of the most important philosophical facts about moral metaphysics (whether or not morality exists as opposed to moral feelings or preferences).  The seeming inability to choose to be human does not mean that it is logically impossible for humans to have moral value.  Gender, race, and more are objectively irrelevant to the only characteristics that would be morally good or vile in the first place, so this does not contradict the truth that not choosing one's gender or race is itself irrelevant to whether humans are valuable at all.  It is still human value or meaninglessness that would make all people have a baseline moral significance or no existential value whatsoever.