meyer_2@h-sc1.UUCP (peter meyer) (01/05/86)
It doesn't seem to me that an anti-murder stance which avoids religious references needs to be so tentative as Adrian Kent's, which I just received. If murder were acceptable generally it would be very difficult to maintain a society as complex as the one we live in. (In fact, I think it would be impossible.) If the leaders of any political faction could simply be killed by their opponents it would be awfully difficult to make intelligent decisions. Such a society would be easily outcompeted by one in which human life (post-birth) were given more respect. So to maintain the complicated civilization we have now, from which we derive great benefits, we have to make person-to-person murder basically illegal (with minor exceptions for self-defense, perhaps suicide, etc). Society could exist whether or not abortion is allowed. It is somewhat easier to keep society at top efficiency if we allow abortion, however. For this reason (and others) I think it makes sense to make murder illegal but abortion legal. Peter Meyer Disclaimer: Any resemblance between the opinions expressed above and those of any other person, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (01/09/86)
In article <863@h-sc1.UUCP> meyer_2@h-sc1.UUCP (peter meyer) writes: > If murder were acceptable generally it would > be very difficult to maintain a society as complex as the one > we live in. (In fact, I think it would be impossible.) You have already assumed that it is desirable to maintain a society as complex as the one we live in. I'm sure you have many reasons why you personally find that desirable, but other people think that a return to a simpler society would be a good idea. So why should we assume that "a society as complex as the one we live in" should be considered desirable for all? (NB: For those who love to misinterpret articles, I didn't say that those who advocate a simpler society also advocate murder; I am only challenging the assumption that our current, complex society is inherently desirable.) > If the > leaders of any political faction could simply be killed by their > opponents it would be awfully difficult to make intelligent > decisions. On the other hand, it would certainly provide an incentive to think a lot before making decisions. It gives new meaning to the concept of holding one's leaders accountable, does it not? > Such a society would be easily outcompeted by one > in which human life (post-birth) were given more respect. What does the above claim mean? That a society with little respect for human life would be easily replaced by one with one with much respect? It seems to me that there are several societies extant today where human life per se is given little or no respect, yet they seem to be holding their own. And if high respect for post-birth human life yields a society which "competes better," why wouldn't respect for all human life yield a society which competes even better? > So to maintain the complicated civilization we have now, from > which we derive great benefits... Which "we" are you talking about? What about those who don't feel they derive great benefits from the complicated civilization we have now? What about those who feel that they would (or do) derive great benefit from being absolute rulers over others? Why should your concept of benefit be considered inherently superior to these others? > we have to make person-to-person > murder basically illegal (with minor exceptions for self-defense, > perhaps suicide, etc). Suicide? What possible reason could you have for wanting to make suicide illegal? >Society could exist whether or not abortion is allowed. >It is somewhat easier to keep society at top efficiency if we >allow abortion, however. Fascinating. Pray tell, what does it mean "to keep society at top efficiency"? How does one measure the ease of doing that with a society? How many societies have been measured, and what other variables (besides the legality of abortion) affect this quantity? Gary Samuelson
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (01/11/86)
** I am an agnostic with a negative bias against organized religion. I have always thought that there were purely pragmatic reasons that stopped people from killing each other aside from laws or moral standards. The most obvious one is the fact that humans, like prarie dogs and other creatures, are social animals. We need each other to survive. Language, something that is uniquely human, is "given" to us by our society. Our language influences our very thoughts. When one person kills another, he can hurt him or her self also. If society is negatively influenced, it degrades the quality of life for everyone, even the murderer. What influence does murdering another have on the quality of life of a murderer? In our society it would degrade the quality of life for most people. Who wants to be friends with a murderer? Even if it was completely legal, a murderer is likely to be shunned by most people. Job opportunities would be limited. It is true that in the U.S. there are people for whom the quality of their life is improved if they become a murderer. For instance, a member of a prison gang that murders a snitch. Of course, laws, morality, and so on have little to do with that situation. Can you fault a person if he stabs a snitch to aviod being gang-raped to death? Most people try to get along with their fellow humans because it makes life much more pleasant and easy. The motive may be selfish, but it is honest. The idea that people do not kill each other because of laws or because of moral standards seems unlikely to me. What difference does my or anyone elses religious preference have to do with me or anyone else wanting to have an enjoyable life? -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382