Yourself. You're just filtering your thoughts through language. Monologues can be both internal or external. You may play with the grammatical person, but you're still speaking to yourself. Most farmers don't have time to play. A kid does. What it shows is... A child will quite happily pull the wings of a fly, or kick a hamster ball down the stairs. We are not moral by default. We are socially conditioned in to our morality, based on the moral values of that society. These moral values, as you know, can vary widely from society to society, rendering the notion of absolute morality meaningless - Remove that and all you're left with is survival strategy. Ah, so then it would it make a difference if the animals in the thought experiment were dumped in that place to fertilize the soil for future farming? If you farm, that's you. Ok, lets mix up the subject a bit... You control the animal's only food source Letting them starve - Not immoral Killing them - Immoral You control a baby's only food source Letting it starve - Not immoral Killing it - Immoral *sings* How much difference a dna makes And what about a society without these social safety nets? Or perhaps the treatment is performed in a foreign clinic? When you boil it down the choice is "Would you choose to give someone an opportunity, knowing that it could have negative reprocussions" Is it, for example, moral to save the life of a dictator, knowing that there is a chance that others will suffer due to your choice? Given the examples so far, it seems to me that notion of morality is incredibly short-sighted - As long as you're one step removed from responsiblity then its moral to ignore the reprocussions.