peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (04/09/84)
To accuse Laura of trying to talk away the issue, referring to a large number of peripheral matters, is not, I think, too harsh. If a system of ethics is to be valuable, it has to apply to the bee- sting incident AS GIVEN, with whatever amount of anti-toxin there is. Laura does not say which course of action to take-- whether to distribute the anti-toxin equally and risk death of all or to give it to one, and which one. A system which shrugs in "unnatural" situations is of no help in tough situations, like deciding on abortion. And I am amazed by the statement that it doesn't matter what you do because any assistance you give is gravy. If you've got the anti-toxin there and you don't use it at all, surely that is evil, isn't it? I'd like to propose some "conflicting goods" that I believe are involved in the abortion issue: - the desire to increase the number of living people - the right of someone to control their own bodies - the desire to reduce the amount of suffering in the world It is very hard to justify picking any one of these as most important-- it's very close to a "why are we here?" question. Making the question harder is that they are interrelated, sometimes strongly. I offer no guidance as to which to pick to maximize, because I can't justify my feelings. p. rowley, U. Toronto