“Statements that seem to be common sense to the speakers are nonetheless often profoundly religious in nature. Imagine that Ms A argues that all the safety nets for the poor should be removed, in the name of ‘survival of the fittest’. Ms B might respond, ‘The poor have the right to a decent standard of living – they are human beings like the rest of us!’ Ms A could then come back with the fact that many bioethicists today think the concept of ‘human’ is artificial and impossible to define. She might continue that there is no possibility of treating all living organisms as ends rather than means and that some always have to die that others may live. That is simply the way nature works. If Ms B counters with a pragmatic argument, that we should help the poor simply because it makes society work better, Ms A could come up with many similar pragmatic arguments about why letting some of the poor just die would be even more efficient. Now Ms B would be getting angry. She would respond heatedly that starving the poor is simply unethical, but Ms A could retort, ‘Who says ethics must be the same for everyone?’ Ms B would finally exclaim: ‘I wouldn’t want to live in a society like the one you are describing!’ In this interchange Ms B has tried to follow John Rawls and find universally accessible, ‘neutral and objective’ arguments that would convince everyone that we must not starve the poor. She has failed because there are none. In the end Ms B affirms the equality and dignity of human individuals simply because she believes it is true and right. She takes as an article of faith that people are more valuable than rocks or trees – though she can’t prove such a belief scientifically. Her public policy proposals are ultimately based on a religious stance.23”