anderson@ittvax.UUCP (Scott Anderson) (04/12/84)
Gerald Owens (gatech!owens) just spent a great deal of time and disk space arguing about my bees example, and though I appreciate it, I think it was unnecessary. I constructed the example because I wanted to show that there are times when there is no solution which is clearly right, as Laura Creighton believes. I also wanted to stick with her sole postulate that "life is good," so that we would be at least using the same axioms. The point of the article was to argue that there exist hard decisions. Gerald Owens says: 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. Many people believe that abortion is a case calling for "lifeboat ethics," since they believe a (potential) human life is at stake. I don't think I'm going too far afield to use examples such as the one I did. He says that 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" I'm foolish to jump at such bait, but, okay, I will: this time there's no anti-toxin, but our hero has the option of giving CPR to one or the other victim, but not both. Don't bother answering, I don't want to know what your "answer" is. (What does an "answer" MEAN in a case when one chooses between greys? Is there a single, true "answer?") Why don't I want to know? The point is that it is a dilemma, a hard decision that our hero has to make, and whatever decision he makes will have some good and some bad. He has to live with the results of his decision, and that, too, will be hard. I don't intend to judge him, to tell him what he should have done, and that he was morally wrong to choose what he did. I will stick by our hero, emphasizing the good that he did, and consoling and comforting him for the evil he has done simultaneously. I would stick by you (Owens), in whatever decision you made, regardless of what it was. Owens goes on to analyze the bees dilemma, arguing that someone must have been at fault. For instance: 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 ... Perhaps I picked a bad example; one in which someone WAS at fault. But is it always the case, when faced with a dilemma, that someone can be picked to shoulder the blame and bear the judgement that we shall cast upon him? I don't think so. (There's a wonderful book called @i(When Bad Things Happen to Good People), by Harold Kushner. I highly recommend it.) Perhaps I now understand why Laura harps so much on abstinence (the perfect prevention) and perfect contraception (sterilization). Yes, if there's a perfect world, then we won't be faced with these dilemmas. There would always be someone who was a fault and whom we could blame. Alas that the world is not perfect. Two people try their best to prevent a pregnancy while having a normal, loving, sexual relationship, and the fickle finger of fate zaps them. I'm not going to cast the first stone. (And I'm not saying Owens would either--he seems like a decent human being.) Different people and different situations will yield different "solutions" to what is, abstractly, the same dilemma. And each choice will probably be right for those involved. I don't think we (or the Supreme Court) can say, a priori, whether abortion in the abstract should or should not be done, but rather I believe that it depends on the concrete situation and that the choice should be left to those it will affect. Let's keep talking, 'cause I'm learning, Scott D. Anderson decvax!ittvax!anderson