wex@milano.UUCP (01/07/86)
In article <1101@oddjob.UUCP>, apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) tries to present some of his reasoning (not religiously-based) as to why one ought not to murder adult human beings. This is something which is quite difficult to do, and Adrian makes several mistakes. Lines beginning with > are from Adrian. > ... I'll give you two arguments which suggest that it's generally wrong to > kill people. > (1) I start from a position of utilitarianism, so that an action which is > intended to produce the greatest good for the greatest number is a moral > action. Unfortunately, Adrian is starting from a position of *global* utilitarianism; that is, he feels that the principles of ut. are applicable by him to others. This is a very weak position, the reasons for which are better suited to net.philosophy. Let me give just one example, from real life, indicating some of the problems: In Jamaica, there are Rastafarians who use ganja in their religion and in their everyday lives. They believe that it increases their abilities, intellect, etc. They tried quite hard to convice me that I was somehow incomplete because I didn't want to smoke it. Now, if they held to the principle above, they would believe that it was moral for them to force me to smoke it. Adrian can use his principle only because the large majority of his readers have very similar ideas of what is `the good.' > > (2) First argument. Adult human beings tend to possess a variety of qualities > which I regard as valuable (for example, kindness, intelligence, creativity). > I'll refer to these qualities collectively as "character" ... > Corpses have no discernible character, so people with good characters are > better for the world than corpses, all else being equal. I therefore enjoin > you not to kill people with good character. This argument does not apply to > abortion, since the character of a foetus is little-developed. Leaving aside the argument about the goodness of humans, I must point out that here, as elsewhere, you equate fetus with human. This is clearly a fallacy, as debate here and elsewhere (including before the Supreme Court) has indicated that there is no way to `prove' when these two become the same. > Second argument. A society in which each member evaluated the character of > her sisters and brothers, and felt free to kill those she regarded as bad, > would be a less pleasant society than one in which adult human life was > generally protected. I would like to point out that this, too, is an unsupported claim. > Killing people, of whatever character, tends to diminish the general respect > for adult life. Again, no support for this is given. As a counter-example, consider the Vietnam conflict. A great deal of opposition to the war could be traced to the daily body counts, augmented by grisly pictures every night on our TV screens. For years after (maybe even today) Americans were sensitive to when and where our troops were used. Carter was quite proud of the fact that no American soldier was killed during his administration. I'm sorry Adrian, but I don't see that you have advanced any argument against killing adult humans. If you'd like to try, I think we ought to move this to net.phil. --Alan Wexelblat -- WEX@MCC.ARPA ...ut-sally!im4u!milano!wex
oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev) (01/08/86)
In article <325@milano.UUCP> wex@milano.UUCP writes: >Let me give just one example, from real life, indicating some >of the problems: In Jamaica, there are Rastafarians who use ganja in their >religion and in their everyday lives. They believe that it increases their >abilities, intellect, etc. They tried quite hard to convice me that I was >somehow incomplete because I didn't want to smoke it. Now, if they held to the >principle above, they would believe that it was moral for them to force me to >smoke it. Adrian can use his principle only because the large majority of his >readers have very similar ideas of what is `the good.' *IF* they forced you! PRO-LIFE movement is in favor of FORCIN women NOT to have abortins. Pro-choice argument is that women should have a choice. You argument is invalid. Only if PRO-CHOICE side were to FORCE MANDATORY abortions on ALL women, would your example be of any merit. -- Disclamer: I don't work here anymore - so they are not responsible for me. +-------------------------------+ Don't bother, I'll find the door! | STAY ALERT! TRUST NO ONE! | Oleg Kiselev. | KEEP YOUR LASER HANDY! |...!{trwrb|scgvaxd}!felix!birtch!oleg --------------------------------+...!{ihnp4|randvax}!ucla-cs!uclapic!oac6!oleg
apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) (01/08/86)
In article <325@milano.UUCP> wex@milano.UUCP writes: >In article <1101@oddjob.UUCP>, apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) tries to present >some of his reasoning (not religiously-based) as to why one ought not to >murder adult human beings. This is something which is quite difficult to do, >and Adrian makes several mistakes. Lines beginning with > are from Adrian. I disagree with the ensuing analysis. Anyone who's interested can find the reasons in net.philosophy. ak
wex@milano.UUCP (01/10/86)
In article <246@birtch.UUCP>, oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev) is responding to my arguments against Adrian. He writes: > *IF* they forced you! PRO-LIFE movement is in favor of FORCIN women NOT to > have abortins. Pro-choice argument is that women should have a choice. You > argument is invalid. Only if PRO-CHOICE side were to FORCE MANDATORY > abortions on ALL women, would your example be of any merit. Relax, Oleg. You are striking at shadows. My example was meant to show Adrian that he ought not to use global utilitarianism as a starting point for his argument(s) against killing adult humans. That argument has moved to net.philosophy, and you are welcome to join us there. I am quite familiar with both sides of the abortion issue. I prefer not to publicize my position here and now. I have yet to make a statement (pro or con) about abortion. It strikes me as interesting, though, that you think forcing someone NOT to do something is similar to forcing someone to DO something. --Alan Wexelblat -- ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA UUCP: ...ut-sally!im4u!milano!wex