chris@grkermit.UUCP (Chris Hibbert) (06/28/83)
One problem with isrnix!tim's requirement that morality be based on survival of the species is that most of us will never make any decisions that will affect the survival of the species. I'm a Libertarian (because I hold individual rights as paramount) and if it ever came to me to make a decision that gave me a choice of my life versus the survival of mankind, I hope I would want to give up my life. (I didn't say sacrifice, because it isn't a sacrifice to give up a lesser value to further a greater.) The mother in isrnix!tim's example saves her child because she has come to value the child and its potentials higher than her own life. In a rational war (perhaps WWI or WWII, certainly not Viet Nam, or El Salvador) I would be willing to give up my life to defend a society that was upholding the rights I believe in.
chris@grkermit.UUCP (Chris Hibbert) (07/07/83)
Here are some excerpts from an exchange between isrnix!tim and myself,
followed by my rebuttal to his most recent comment.
"The primary moral value is NOT to preserve an individual life-
it is to preserve the life of the species as a whole!"
--isrnix!tim in <248@isrnix.UUCP>
"if it ever came to me to make a decision that gave me a choice of
my life versus the survival of mankind, I hope I would want to give
up my life.
...
In a rational war ... I would be willing to give up my life to
defend a society that was upholding the rights I believe in."
--grkermit!chris in <456@grkermit.UUCP>
"Chris says that he would favor actions which insure the survival
of the species over the individual. I am glad to see a Libertarian
admit that there is a need to value our species survival over any
given individual life."
-- isrnix!tim in <257@isrnix.UUCP>
Read carefully, that isn't quite what I said. I said that I would LIKE
to prefer actions which insure the survival of the species over my
life. I wouldn't say "[I] would favor actions which insure the survival
of the species over the individual," since I have no right to make that
decision for anyone but myself.
What I meant by saying "I hope I would want" is that of the 2
situations:
1. I prefer to give up my life in the course of some action that
ensures or enables the survival of the human life.
2. I prefer to save my life and let the species certainly die in
the forseeable future.
I find the former situation to be preferable. The reason for this is
that I value rational life, and I prefer situations in which I consider
the human race to be mostly rational life. (ie. The situations that I
can imagine in which I would prefer to live out my life knowing I
hadn't take steps to save the race all involve becoming terminally
exasperated with the race.)
Some of the reasons I prefer a rational human race (if they aren't
obvious) are: I am a social creature, and prefer company; and I know
that a whole rational race will continuously invent things to make my
life more comfortable, and I wouldn't have time to invent them all in
their absence.
I don't believe "that there is a need to value the species over any
given individual['s] life." (My insertion in the quotation should show
where my sympathies lie.)
PS. I admire the way you switched subjects in the last article I
refer to above. I agree with you that something must be done to
stop the insane arms race.
decvax!genrad!grkermit!chris
allegra!linus!genrad!grkermit!chris
harpo!eagle!mit-vax!grkermit!chris