owens@gatech.UUCP (Gerald R. Owens) (04/10/84)
<food> The kind of ethics that would be developed in emergencies would be called lifeboat ethics. They'd apply only to the situation, and probably would be abandoned after it terminated. Emergencies of a life threatening nature are usually unforseen, and there would be hell to pay if it WAS forseen and no actions were taken to avert or prepare for it. Therefore, I doubt that pregnancy would constitute a "life threatening" situation that was unforseen in the general case (this is not to exclude the times when it does become a physical danger to the mother, in which case the principle of self defense comes into play.). But now to the bee problem. I find it interesting that there is some antitoxin, but not enough. This is usually the case in a "set up" situation like this. But why should there be any?? If nobody knows that your friends are allergic, then why bring any?? And if somebody knew enough to bring some along, then they ought to know the adequate dose and tell if there's enough for two or only for one. I.e. SOMEBODY had to have the brains to bring some along. So Who?? There are two groups to consider, the two who are allergic and those who aren't. Suppose one knew he was allergic and brought an adequate dose, while the other didn't, either because he didn't know he was allergic or decided it wouldn't happen. Therefore, the antitoxin should be given to the one who had the foresight to bring it (unless he states otherwise. it IS his antitoxin.). The other guy took his chances and lost. Sure, it's too bad, but why should the one with forsight be sacrificed for the ignorant or stupid in a case like this?? (if both knew and both brought antitoxin, then the problem doesn't exist. If neither knew, then who DID know to bring the antitoxin???) Now, suppose it was someone who wasn't allergic. He knew someone was allergic, and had incentive to bring the stuff for them. A loved one perhaps?? Probably a child. He obviously didn't know about the other one, otherwise he'd have brought enough for both (anyone who knows enough about bee stings to bring antitoxin would be concerned enough to bring enough for all the ones THAT HE KNEW OF). Therefore, the antitoxin is HIS, and he has the decision to give it. I would suggest he give it to the one HE valued the most, since it was brought for that purpose. In cases like this, I would personally go with the party displaying more preparation for the emergency. There is, of course, the case where the antitoxin is part of a general medical kit that is brought along to take care of any emergency, but then that showed that SOMEBODY had foresight, so there ought not to be any faulting the guy's decision (laura would leave the decision to him, while there are some philosophies that would INSIST that he give it to the party he valued the LEAST, and would condemn him if he did otherwise.) In "set up" situations like this, the usual recourse is now to twiddle with the parameters a bit, make it more specific and supposedly more difficult to answer. However, the more a set of ethics is tuned to one particular case, the less general it becomes to serve for emergencies in general, and normal life in particular. Although I am of the same general ethical group that laura is, I do not hold life as a supreme value, but mind, rationality, and intelligence. The value of life in supporting the mind then follows naturally. Since this is net.abortion, I will apply my ethics and say that, at the moment, abortion is ok if the fetus has not started to display brainwaves, but immoral afterwards. (I don't attach all that much value to the physical body per se, since most religions have God giving the saved a new body. Giving a person a new mind, rationality, and intelligence is almost creating a different person entirely, so the original person isn't really saved. Thus, mind is more important than the physical container of it, if the two can be separated). For all replies and responses, please keep in mind that the context of my EXPLANATION is an emergency. How I'd apply my ethics to normal life, when there are no life or death decisions to be made would involve the addition of extra information that is excluded from an emergency but which comes into play during normal life. Thus, questions like: "would you murder a person with an IQ of 90 since yours is over 110?" or "would you value a person with an IQ of 90 over one with an IQ of 110?" would either involve laws (i wouldn't murder), or contexts (dating? hiring?) that would add extra information for consideration. In making moral decisions, one needs as MUCH information as possible, not the LEAST amount. Gerald Owens Owens@gatech o
kadie@uiucdcs.UUCP (04/15/84)
#R:gatech:-591100:uiucdcs:44700016:000:1 uiucdcs!kadie Apr 15 13:00:00 1984