The reasons why one would save a 5-year old, are not fundamental moral principles but purely psychological
How do you identify when a moral rule is a fundamental principle versus a psychological preference?
…even if we have no reason to believe them [the five year old] to be more morally valuable [than the eggs].
In your view, is someone who saves twenty viable eggs over a five year old a more moral person than someone who does the reverse? (in some sort of ideal sense, regardless of whether anyone would do this or not)
The problem here is that if you want to show that something is true, you can’t rely on premises being true that require the conclusion to be true…
I don’t think that I’m engaging in any circular reasoning. I’m not trying to argue that bodily autonomy is good- I’m making the base assumption that bodily autonomy is good and should be treated as a fundamental moral principle because it makes sense of a lot of moral intuitions that I have. That’s not any more circular or arbitrary than any other moral principle.
EDIT: Also, I appreciate you getting back to me, and in case we don’t talk again until after the holidays, Merry Christmas!