flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) (12/29/84)
From: Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp
> We don't really want to >increase< the number of persons,
> but, rather, we value those we have.
Speak for yourself. I want to see the number of persons increase,
if their average level of material welfare stays roughly constant.
Why not? That someone would be brought into the world for a hopeless
life of physical pain would be a reason against creating that person,
right? Then why doesn't a happy life count as a reason *for* creating
that person? In fact, if it didn't, there would be no way to justify
having any children at all, since there is some risk of a miserable
life (terminal birth defect or whatever).
From: Ron Rizzo
> Morality is a human matter, external to & imposed on nature (& human
> experience which is part of nature), & necessarily somewhat arbitrary
> with respect to it. Appeals to nature actually corrupt ethics.
I agree that the argument "It's natural, therefore it's right" never
works (is that what you're saying?), but I disagree with the statement
that morality is external to human experience. Dead wrong. Experience
has plenty to do with morality. It has a lot to do with how we learn
morals.
From: Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
> If you are going to play one concern against another why don't you tell us
> what is *the* most important thing to be concerned with so that we can
> all drop everything else and rush over and solve that problem.
Such sarcasm seems completely out of line to me. I think it is perfectly
fair to criticize your charitable activities, and it makes perfect sense
to seek a top priority. I'd say a good criterion for the most important
thing to be concerned with is to work at the most cost-effective way to
save human lives that you can. I suspect this means addressing problems
of hunger or disease in the third world. Me? I'm working on finding the
most cost-effective way. Seriously.
--Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink
(until 1/11, then back to: wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 )