amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson) (03/19/84)
My main complaint with the pro-life people is that for many of them, pro-life = anti-abortion. What about being against war, against capital punishment, against vivisection. Frank Schaeffer (son of the well known evangelical Christian writer Francis Schaeffer) has recently written a book, BAD NEWS FOR MODERN MAN, in which he takes a strong stand against abortion, and blasts Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago for saying that pro-life activists should also be against war and capital punishment. Personally, I support the Cardinal's stand, and say that if you are against the one as being destructive of human life, then logically you should also be against the others. I do not understand Schaeffer's view. Admittedly, I have not read the book, only reviews of it. Personally, I am against abortion, but I have a problem. I once had a friend of mine nearly die and become permanently sterile because of a botched "back street" abortion (this was before the Roe vs. Wade decision); and I fear that if abortion were banned, this sort of thing would start happening again. I am also leary of people who make sweeping moral statements saying that something is immoral in all cases. It is a fairly well accepted rule in ethics that the context of an action must be considered before any judgement of its morality may be made. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs--Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/23/84)
Ethics is a pretty complicated issue. The context of an ethical action is of supreme importance in telological (consequentialist) theories of ethics (such as utilitarianism or ethical egoism) but doesn't really matter as much in deontological theories (such as Kant's) and really doesn't matter very much as all (except in that it is interesting) in theories such as Natural Law where an action can been demonstrated to be wrong regardless of the consequences. The difference between them is rather clearly seen when I pose the question: It is wrong to kill humn beings. Almost everybody will agree with this. However, a lot of people will say "it is wrong because it just is" (thus supporting natural law, and having found a basic axiom of truth which need not be questioned) where as other people will say "well, this is in general true, but there are cases when it is morally right to kill a human being". These people (usually utilitarians, since the theory is relatively popular) see that the good of an action can only be ascertained with respect to its consequences (in this case "the greatest good of the greatest number"). Personally, I think that utilitarianism is fundamentally flawed. What I don't know how to do is judge whether a fetus is human or not. Until there is a definition that everyone can live with (and don't hold your breath) I do not think you should abort *anything*, simply because if you made a mistake in your assessment of human life you would act againsyt the basic good of human life, which to my mind is *the* basic good and needs no justification. (This puts me pretty solidly in the Natural Law camp, at least with respect to the existence of axiomatic fundamental goods. However I am also solidly in te ethical egoist camp, so if you expect traditional Natural Law, you won't get it here. However, I support ethical egoism because I think that it is in accordance with the natural laws, which moves me back... The question is that I think that it is never in your own interest to abort something which is a human being <and remember, I don't know how to judge> and if you think that it is then you are making a mistake in your judgement.) However, having people raised in homes where they are not wanted is not good and adoption has such a high rate of failure that either it is fundamentally flawed or we don't know enough about how people grow up to know how to adopt them properly. Therefore, the solution is to make it extremely difficult to get pregnant. Sterilise everybody, and then there will be no abortions and no unwanted children. If you want children, then make the process reversible. In Canada the proportion of unwed mothers who are on welfare is staggering. I have to pay taxes to support these people who were so damn irresponsible as to get pregnant in the first place. Birth control methods fail, and people do get raped, but I know that most of these children were the result of sheer irresponsibility on the part of at least one (and usually 2) people. I would rather not pay for these people's irresponsibility. I don't condone such blatant immaturity and irresponsibility in anyone. Given the great number of people who seem perfectly willing to act in such a lousy manner as to have irresponsible sex, I would much rather sterilise the lot of them. A lot of people have told me that this is harsh, but I have yet to see why, given that sterilisation is reversible. I'll bet if both the pro-life and the pro-choice camps sent their money to this cause we would have reversible sterilisations pretty darn quick. -- Laura Creighton utzoo!laura "Capitalism is a lot of fun. If you aren't having fun, then you're not doing it right." -- toad terrific
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/26/84)
From: (Laura Creighton) > The question is that I think that it is > never in your own interest to abort something which is a human being > <and remember, I don't know how to judge> and if you think that it is > then you are making a mistake in your judgement.) Huh? could you explain that Laura? I agree that it is definitely not always in the best interest of the fetus to be aborted, but in the best interest of the person who wants to abort not to? I just don't understand the reasonning behind this statement. > Therefore, the solution is to > make it extremely difficult to get pregnant. Sterilise everybody, > and then there will be no abortions and no unwanted children. If > you want children, then make the process reversible. The reversibility rate of sterilisations is very low now, so your suggestion is completely impractible for the time being. It might be a solution in 50 years, but not now, so what do we do in the meantime? "sterilise everybody" eh? who's "everybody". It would be cheaper to sterilise only one sex, but which sex is going to get it? practicality seems to point to males, but how much are you willing to bet, we'd get it? What happens in between children? the sterilised parent would have to go through 2n+1 operations to bear n children (1 desterilisation + 1 sterilisation) + the initial sterilisation. This is pretty crazy!! what about the side-effects of such operations? Your solution is very neat sounding but completely impractical health-wise because it has too many conditions it needs to satisfy. > In Canada the proportion of unwed mothers who are on welfare is > staggering. I have to pay taxes to support these people who were > so damn irresponsible as to get pregnant in the first place. Birth > control methods fail, and people do get raped, but I know that most > of these children were the result of sheer irresponsibility on the > part of at least one (and usually 2) people. I would rather not pay > for these people's irresponsibility. I don't condone such blatant > immaturity and irresponsibility in anyone. Given the great number of > people who seem perfectly willing to act in such a lousy manner as > to have irresponsible sex, I would much rather sterilise the lot of > them. A lot of people have told me that this is harsh, but I have > yet to see why, given that sterilisation is reversible. On behalf of all pregnant teenagers: "pardon me for being immature". As far as I can tell, immaturity is something one is born with and that one keeps until one becomes mature. Yes, you're right in pointing out that pregnant teenagers are immature. Teenagers usually are. You don't condone immaturity? You'd better stay away from children. Most of the ones I've met are pretty immature. "irresponsible sex", could you define this term please, and explain why it is "lousy"? My, we are being holy!! If you are interested, Canada is like most industriali- sed countries in that it has a problem because its population is aging. These children who are the product of "irresponsibility" or whatever are the ones who will be paying for your livelyhood when you are too old to work, they will be the ones producing the food you eat and all the other goods you will be consuming even though you will not be working. Without them you'll be dead!! You'd better take care of them now when you can. You basically have a choice between 2 types of society: In the first one, the strong take care of the weak, where the weak are usually the young, the old, the diseased and the socially disadvantaged. It is hoped in this kind of society that at one time in their life, each individual will be strong and contribute to the caring of the weak. It is also more or less accepted that there are some people who will never be strong enough to pull their weight and others who will never be weak enough (except in childhood) to benefit from being helped by the strong. This is what is commonly refered to as a "welfare state". In the second one, everybody does as they damn well please and nobody cares about the others. Let them eat shit if they can't defend themselves. The problem with this one is that most people cannot be continually strong, so this society is the kind of society where children, old people, and other weak members are left unprotected. Talk about killing embryos, what about letting old people starve? For some reason, the second thing seems as bad to me as the first one (or even worse since we know for sure that old people are persons) We live in a combination of the two, but our society is based on the welfare idea. YOU have already benefited from it when you were young. Where do you think that education of yours came from? sure your parents payed a great deal, but society paid even more than they did. You never asked for it, so why should you be forced to pay now? Well you can rhetorically try to get out of it. Pay society back for your education, medical care and promise you'll never use anything that will be produced by those "welfare" children when they grow up, then maybe you can start bitching about being forced to pay money for them. Unfortunately, this is all rhetorical, there is no way for people like you to get out of it in practise, and it is a shame because it will mean that you will continue to take advantage of evrything that is given to you and still bitch about having to pay for other people's children. > I'll bet if both the pro-life and the pro-choice camps sent their money > to this cause we would have reversible sterilisations pretty darn > quick. The pro-choice people do believe in CHOICE to have children or not and choice over what to do with our bodies. This includes the choice of whether or not to be sterilised. So there is no way that pro-choice people would ever endorse such a solution as the one you've just suggested. Laura, I am very surprised that you do not have anything more realistic to say about the matter. I have another suggestion in the same vein as yours and much more realistic in that science is quickly progressing in that direction and this solution will be much more practical and less dangerous health wise: do away with this messy business of birth, and have test tube babies instead; you will only need one sterilisation this way. Did you ever read "brave new world": "civilisation is sterilisation" (haha, at least this one is not a cliche this year). We will soon be able to do everything they do there. You won't have to worry about paying for those awful "welfare" babies and their horrible "irresponsible" parents, you will be able to make sure that none of these disgusting welfare people will ever get their hands on kids either. Maybe you will also be able to make sure that none of these "welfare" people are born in the first place by skillful manipulation of the right gene (:-)) After all, if we can progree enough to be able to produce safe, completely reversible sterilisations, why couldn't we also develop safe ex-utero growing environments for embryos? AHHH YECCHHH!!!!! > -- > Laura Creighton > utzoo!laura > > "Capitalism is a lot of fun. If you aren't having fun, then > you're not doing it right." -- toad terrific "Capitalism is a lot of fun. If you aren't having fun, then that's because the others are having too much fun at your expense" Sophie Quigley ...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigley
ix192@sdccs6.UUCP (03/26/84)
[] From: ...utzoo!laura (Laura Creighton) > "It is wrong to kill human beings" <-[ Retyped by me (Kenn) ] > > Almost everybody will agree with this. However, a lot of people will > say "it is wrong because it just is" (thus supporting natural law, > and having found a basic axiom of truth which need not be questioned) > where as other people will say "well, this is in general true, but there are > cases when it is morally right to kill a human being". These people > (usually utilitarians, since the theory is relatively popular) see that > the good of an action can only be ascertained with respect to its > consequences (in this case "the greatest good of the greatest number"). > Personally, I think that utilitarianism is fundamentally flawed. Well then why don't you take on a pragmatistic point of view - Humans created the 'do not kill humans' rule so they or their loved ones wouldn't be killed. I would think this is a much more efficient and understandable reason than, "because it is". > What > I don't know how to do is judge whether a fetus is human or not. Until > there is a definition that everyone can live with (and don't hold > your breath) I do not think you should abort *anything*, simply because > if you made a mistake in your assessment of human life you would act > againsyt the basic good of human life, which to my mind is *the* > basic good and needs no justification. Hold it kiddo! Who's lives are you talking about here? The fetus, and only the fetus, and I think that's a pretty damned selfish point of view. I would never sacrifice any part of my life towards a child I don't have to or want to have, even if it would mean saving it's life. And I would never want anyone else to do so either. A fetus can't feel it's death. It can't suffer. But those of us who it involves can suffer, and most of us will. (Which I admit is also a sort of selfish point of view, but I would consider at least two living human beings more important than one potential one) > <and remember, I don't know how to judge> You're right. > The question is that I think that it is > never in your own interest to abort something which is a human being > and if you think that it is > then you are making a mistake in your judgement. I think it is. Kids are fine if you are ready for them, but in this cut-throat and dog-eat-dog world we live in (and over-populated as well, remember!), they are definetly an impedement for the unhappy mother and father. And even if the parents are happy with the child, unless one of them was going to stay at home constantly anyway, futures and jobs have been changed and the family's children will grow up in bleaker times than they should have. > However, having people raised in homes where they are not wanted is not > good and adoption has such a high rate of failure that either it is > fundamentally flawed or we don't know enough about how people grow up > to know how to adopt them properly. Therefore, the solution is to > make it extremely difficult to get pregnant. Sterilise everybody, > and then there will be no abortions and no unwanted children. If > you want children, then make the process reversible. Good! I hope you're joking. Should we eliminate the Jews and Blacks afterwards, and annex South America? Forcing sterilization is playing the same game as Opression, kiddo. Watch who you vote for. > In Canada the proportion of unwed mothers who are on welfare is > staggering. I have to pay taxes to support these people who were > so damn irresponsible as to get pregnant in the first place. Birth > control methods fail, and people do get raped, but I know that most > of these children were the result of sheer irresponsibility on the > part of at least one (and usually 2) people. I would rather not pay > for these people's irresponsibility. I don't condone such blatant > immaturity and irresponsibility in anyone. Given the great number of > people who seem perfectly willing to act in such a lousy manner as > to have irresponsible sex, I would much rather sterilise the lot of > them. Let me get this straight - someone as radical as you can't condone the killing of a few fetuses, but would rather force a fifth of your entire nation to undergo a process which virtually none of them would agree to? Sure, we could nuke all the poor countries in the world, take them over and there'd be no third world problems. We could move the Jews back to Israel and the Blacks to Africa, all the nationalities to their countries of origin and there'd be no ratial problems. It doesn't work Laura, people don't want to go along. But with an abortion, two of the three people will go along, and the third isn't even a people yet. > A lot of people have told me that this is harsh, but I have > yet to see why, given that sterilisation is reversible. It is? Not when I last heard about it. > I'll bet if both the pro-life and the pro-choice camps sent their money > to this cause we would have reversible sterilisations pretty darn > quick. I'm willing to pay for an abortion, I'm willing to pay for someone else's abortion, but not for other people not to get pregnant! Unwanted pregnancies will always be around while the younger generations are so promiscuous. No sterilization will always be guaranteed reversable, so people won't risk a mandatory post-birth operation. You'll have the same situation as today - and with abortion outlawed. And abortion seems to be the only thing that's a cure for today's pregnancy problems. Kenn the Kenf ...!sdcsvax!kenn ...!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix192 ...!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!kenn
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/31/84)
The question is that I think that it is never in your own interest to abort something which is a human being <and remember, I don't know how to judge> and if you think that it is then you are making a mistake in your judgement.) Huh? could you explain that Laura? I agree that it is definitely not always in the best interest of the fetus to be aborted, but in the best interest of the person who wants to abort not to? I just don't understand the reasonning behind this statement. Sophie, it is never a good idea to kill another human being. Human beings are very valuable. Thus if the fetus is a human being then killing it is a bad idea. It may not be in your best interests to RAISE the child, but there is absolutely nothing that one can be doing which can justify killing another human being, unless that human being will kill you unless you kill them first. Therefore, the solution is to make it extremely difficult to get pregnant. Sterilise everybody, and then there will be no abortions and no unwanted children. If you want children, then make the process reversible. The reversibility rate of sterilisations is very low now, so your suggestion is completely impractible for the time being. It might be a solution in 50 years, but not now, so what do we do in the meantime? 50 years is an unrealistic estimate. The difficulties in reversing sterilisation are not theoretical, but technical. However, if we make abortion commonly available, nobody may be motivated by need or profit to develop reversible sterilisations. "sterilise everybody" eh? who's "everybody". It would be cheaper to sterilise only one sex, but which sex is going to get it? practicality seems to point to males, but how much are you willing to bet, we'd get it? What happens in between children? the sterilised parent would have to go through 2n+1 operations to bear n children (1 desterilisation + 1 sterilisation) + the initial sterilisation. This is pretty crazy!! what about the side-effects of such operations? Your solution is very neat sounding but completely impractical health-wise because it has too many conditions it needs to satisfy. No, it is not unpractical. I don't particularily care *who* get sterilised -- everybody, just one sex, this hardly strikes me as important. If the decision to have a child or not is a decision that is to be shared by the sexes (something that I believe in, but is obviously not belieed by those who think that a woman should have te right to terminate any pergancy she does not want but here husband does not have the same right, or conversely that she should be allowed to bear a child that her husband does not want yet he be prevented from having her bear a child which he wants, thus making the decision to have a child a decision which is entirely the woman's) then it is more agreeable to have both sexes sterilised. The business of the repeat surgery is not necessary. All you need is to make people sign a legal document saying that they will take responsibility for any fetus that they might be responsible for at least in so far as they will not have it aborted. If you are willing to not abort any fetus that you might be responsible for then there is no reason for the sterilisation. However, since a great many people do not want to be responsible for any fetus that they engender, it must be made possible to deal with these people on-masse. If other methods of birth control were 100% effective then sterilisation would not be necesarry. However, there are theoretical problems with this rather than the technical ones concerning sterilisation. In Canada the proportion of unwed mothers who are on welfare is staggering. I have to pay taxes to support these people who were so damn irresponsible as to get pregnant in the first place. Birth control methods fail, and people do get raped, but I know that most of these children were the result of sheer irresponsibility on the part of at least one (and usually 2) people. I would rather not pay for these people's irresponsibility. I don't condone such blatant immaturity and irresponsibility in anyone. Given the great number of people who seem perfectly willing to act in such a lousy manner as to have irresponsible sex, I would much rather sterilise the lot of them. A lot of people have told me that this is harsh, but I have yet to see why, given that sterilisation is reversible. On behalf of all pregnant teenagers: "pardon me for being immature". As far as I can tell, immaturity is something one is born with and that one keeps until one becomes mature. Yes, you're right in pointing out that pregnant teenagers are immature. Teenagers usually are. You don't condone immaturity? You'd better stay away from children. Most of the ones I've met are pretty immature. It may be that it is not the teenagers' fault for being immature, but there is something to blame. After all, not all teenagers are immature. I might be able to pardon you for being immature, but that in no way will leave me condoning it. Forgiveness is not the same as condoning. "irresponsible sex", could you define this term please, and explain why it is "lousy"? it is lousy because all actions which are so short-sighted that they do not take into consideration their consequences are te products of unthinking minds. And unthinking is my bottom line definition of evil, just as life is my bottom line definition of good. I can go on about this at great length, but I do not have REASONS for believing that life is good and unthinking is evil, they are basic truths. (Remember I said that I was not particularily interested in teleological theories of ethics). My, we are being holy!! If you are interested, Canada is like most industriali- sed countries in that it has a problem because its population is aging. These children who are the product of "irresponsibility" or whatever are the ones who will be paying for your livelyhood when you are too old to work, they will be the ones producing the food you eat and all the other goods you will be consuming even though you will not be working. Without them you'll be dead!! You'd better take care of them now when you can. By aboring them? Sounds like a pretty crummy way to take care of them to me. by the way, I doubt that any of todays children will ever be supporting me. I expect the whole Social Security system to collapse within the next 20 years. You basically have a choice between 2 types of society: In the first one, the strong take care of the weak, where the weak are usually the young, the old, the diseased and the socially disadvantaged. It is hoped in this kind of society that at one time in their life, each individual will be strong and contribute to the caring of the weak. It is also more or less accepted that there are some people who will never be strong enough to pull their weight and others who will never be weak enough (except in childhood) to benefit from being helped by the strong. This is what is commonly refered to as a "welfare state". Ah, there is a lot more to this than that. In the second one, everybody does as they damn well please and nobody cares about the others. Let them eat shit if they can't defend themselves. The problem with this one is that most people cannot be continually strong, so this society is the kind of society where children, old people, and other weak members are left unprotected. Talk about killing embryos, what about letting old people starve? For some reason, the second thing seems as bad to me as the first one (or even worse since we know for sure that old people are persons) It does not follow that people will not care for others unless tere is some big government forcing them to by means of a welfare state. Most people seem to have oter reasons for caring. ``Dog eat dog'' is one of the great distortions of capitalism. In fact, under a properly working capitalist system tere will be no reason for dogs to eat dogs since it is all too reasonable to co-oporate instead. States, however, are pretty good at making people into objects for other people's benefit which is precisely what you are complaining about. But don't you have the source incorrectly labelled? We live in a combination of the two, but our society is based on the welfare idea. YOU have already benefited from it when you were young. I don't think so. Where do you think that education of yours came from? sure your parents payed a great deal, but society paid even more than they did. My parents payed for private education inprivate schools when I was in grade and high school. Not a drop of tax money went into my education. I am paying for my eductation at university. I have payed for my brother's education at a community college. Canadian universities are cheaper than American universities but I have already paid in taxes more than enough money to have paid for the level of university education I have at an American university. Come again? Where has this welfare system actually benefitted me? You never asked for it, so why should you be forced to pay now? Well you can rhetorically try to get out of it. Pay society back for your education, medical care and promise you'll never use anything that will be produced by those "welfare" children when they grow up, then maybe you can start bitching about being forced to pay money for them. Unfortunately, this is all rhetorical, there is no way for people like you to get out of it in practise, and it is a shame because it will mean that you will continue to take advantage of evrything that is given to you and still bitch about having to pay for other people's children. No. It is possible to get out of the system, but merely difficult. Try any Libertarian party to find out what people are doing. I still can see that I have paid more into the system than I have taken out. I'll bet if both the pro-life and the pro-choice camps sent their money to this cause we would have reversible sterilisations pretty darn quick. The pro-choice people do believe in CHOICE to have children or not and choice over what to do with our bodies. This includes the choice of whether or not to be sterilised. So there is no way that pro-choice people would ever endorse such a solution as the one you've just suggested. I know that. There position is only tenable if the fetus is not a human being, though. Otherwise you are denying the fetus the fetus the right to live with his body which is antithetical to your position. Laura, I am very surprised that you do not have anything more realistic to say about the matter. I have another suggestion in the same vein as yours and much more realistic in that science is quickly progressing in that direction and this solution will be much more practical and less dangerous health wise: do away with this messy business of birth, and have test tube babies instead; you will only need one sterilisation this way. This is fine with me. However, some people will want to have babies the traditional way, and I certainly wouldn't want to stop them. Did you ever read "brave new world": "civilisation is sterilisation" (haha, at least this one is not a cliche this year). We will soon be able to do everything they do there. You won't have to worry about paying for those awful "welfare" babies and their horrible "irresponsible" parents, you will be able to make sure that none of these disgusting welfare people will ever get their hands on kids either. Maybe you will also be able to make sure that none of these "welfare" people are born in the first place by skillful manipulation of the right gene (:-)) After all, if we can progree enough to be able to produce safe, completely reversible sterilisations, why couldn't we also develop safe ex-utero growing environments for embryos? Maybe. Gene manipulation is very tricky, and most people who want kids do not want to *build* them, even if it were possible. ex-utero environments would be nice, but they are harder than reversible sterilisations, and may never be feasible. Sophie, I am not trying to stop irresponsible people from having kids. I am trying to stop them from aborting something which may be a human being. However, I would much prefer that they did not receive their support through a government. Private individuals can support other individuals, after all. I would prefer it if nobody decided to have a kid until it was demonstrable that the means to raise the child was also available. By making pregnancy difficult, rather than just something that happens to you you could achieve most of this effect. -- Laura Creighton utzoo!laura "Capitalism is a lot of fun. If you aren't having fun, then you're not doing it right." -- toad terrific
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/31/84)
Kenn, Statements like ``the fetus can't feel its own death'' require proof. Why is forced sterilisation so repugnant? I am not talking about forced PERMANENT sterilisation; I explicitly mentioned reversible ones. I should like to give people a choice. Either practice birth control (and here is an effective reversible way -- sterilisation) or be responsible for any child that you engender. Until this choice is givn to people then there will always be illegal abortions even if there is no such thing as a legal abortion. Therefore, if you really want to stop the problem of unwanted pregancies leading to the killing of what might be a human being you must have such a choice to give people. In practice, it might not even be necessary to sterilise very many people. The mere thought of this might get people to realise what a grave responsibilitly is a possible outcome of sex. Thus only those who are willing to take on this responsibility could sign the form which says ``no abortions if I am responsible for the engendering of a child''. Sterilisation would then be a wonderful choice for those who really want to avoid having a child at the present time. If it were routine surgery then people would not be so upset about it -- just as most people are not upset about circumcision or appendectomies. For those who are upset about such things there is always the form to sign. I figure that this sort of thing could be implemented much in the same way as one has draft registration. Perhaps you should have everyone sign the form and just make reversible sterilisation a heavily talked about method of birth control. If you just make ``no abortions'' part of the criminal code you will accomplish this thing, but I would rather that people actually had to go out and sign some papaer just because it will drive home the fact that this decision is one which they are commiting themselves to in writing. The reason which I do not say that life is valuable because man has chosen it so is that it makes a rational system of ethics impossible. You will be governed by your whims and I will be governed by mine and since we both chose to act on our whims there is no way in which one can say that ``I am right'' or ``you are wrong'' or vice versa. Decisions become a matter of opinion only, and not of truth. I do not think that life is valuable because I have chosen it to be -- I believe that I chose life to be valuable for me because it *is*. In the same way, I do not believe that knowledge is valaubel because I have chosen to persue knowledge, but rather that I choose to persue knowledge because it it valuable. If I chose to be ignorant then ignorance would not become a virtue by the fact that I chose it (this is the position of Sartre, by the way) but I would be making a logical error in whatever lead me to believe that ignorance is a virtue. In brief, I WOULD BE WRONG. There is no purpose to ethics if there is no question of right or wrong. The purpose of ethical theories is to provide a guideline over what actions one should do. By and large, all theories say that you should ``do good and don't do evil''. They differ over what exactly constitutes an evil. No ethcial theory can tell you what you ought to be doing at any given moment but they can tell you certainthings which you should not be doing at any moment. If one believes that killing is bad by virtue of men choosing that killing is bad then one says that tere is no objective badness in that action. thus an ethical theory is not possible. Everybody should just go on making decisions which will be good by virtue of their deciding them. On te oter hand, most people want to say that certain things are bad because the simply are, ad other things are good because they simply are. The utilitarian maxim is ``the greatest good for the greatest number''. This is the basic good of that theory. there is no question of what makes that statement true -- if you are a ulitarian you regard this as self-evident. Anyone who does not hold this view is mistaken. I, on th other hand, find that te utilitarians are mistaken.I think that it is self-evident that life is good. I think that anyone who does not agree with this is mistaken. In any ethical position you will come down to certain postulates which are accepted by the people who share that position which cannot be proven by the sytem. (This is true of all formal systems -- see Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem for why this is true). What one tries to do is to base one's rational system on what is true about reality. For example, Euclidian geometry has 5 postulates. (4 of these are shared by most non-euclidian geomentries as well). Geometric proofs work, (are real -- are isomorphic to reality) because their basic postulates are grounded in reality. Why don't 2 parellel lines intersect? because they don't! This is the way that the universe works. Change te rules and you can get elliptic and hyperbolic geometries which also work in the realities which they are isomorphic with. (spheres for elliptic geometries. I don't know what with hyperbolic geometries). If you change all the rules you will get something which does not even come close to modelling our reality and thus may be interesting but is more or less useless in the matter of day to day living. If parellel lines intersect in >2 points then the thinking one can do with these ideas is a lot of fun, but when I am building a bookcase I expect that the shelves are not going to intersect because I use good old Euclidian geometry to make them parellel. I want te same degree of consistency in my ethical theory. Therefore there will have to be certain postulates which must be consistent with reality. An ethical theory which says that killing people is great because all murdered people go to a wonderful afterlife is only good if this is a fact -- if I am merely deluded then my ethical system is out of joint with reality and thus no good. My ultimate basic postulate is that life is good. there are other postulates which are almost as basic such as ``knowledge is good'' and ``freedom is good''. But these things are good only so far as they are real. No matter how hard I might choose to make leaping out of a window and flying like Superman a good, leaping out of a window and flying like Superman will never be a good because it is not real -- I will fall like a rock. (building a flying device and using it does not count for te purpose of this example.) Thus ``is life good'' is a basic question which I think is a self evident truth. It may be that you have decided that life is not good in that it is bad or it is neutral. If you have come to the conclusion that it is bad then I have serious doubts about your ability to perceive reality, since you should at least see that life CAN be good without any assistance. If you believe that life is neutral, then what makes certain lives good? Most people who have decided that life is neutral either answer this by saying: God makes certain lives good or Human freedom of choice makes certain lives good. God I am going to leave out of the question. If God exists then I may be making a big mistake here, but Larry Bickford is already working on demonstrating to me that God exists so if I get the inkling that my current belief (God viewed as a being who actually cares about human beings and it to some degree anthropomorphic does not exist -- <I can hack the notion of God as the set of mathematical principles which hold true in this reality, but this is not what most people mean by God>) is not grounded in reality because I get evidence that God exists I will have to backtrack here and say that life might be made good because God makes certain lives good. On to freedom. Freedom is a good, I am sure. Freedom is what one uses to determine which of possible goods I will actualise. (Will i paint my new bookcase or stain it? both choices are good). I do not think that freedom s what makes other things good. Rather I do not think that the notion of goodness can exist under such a constraint. Nothing is objectively good, so therefore anything which I choose to do is a good by virtue of my choice. Thus if I choose to murder you that would be good. I think that the notion of good has been drained of all meaning under such a setup and we are left at the mercy of competing whims with no recorse to te common reality which we share (anoter basic postuate of mine -- also impossible to proove within the system, as readers of Hume will know) to resolve differences. I find this notion incorrect. Therfore I conclude that life is a good, even though it implies that abortions are bad things and I have strong personal reasons for wishing that I could find abortions morally acceptable. But I do not let my whims prevent me from sticking to that which is real as ultimately greater than my personal desires. -- Laura Creighton utzoo!laura "Capitalism is a lot of fun. If you aren't having fun, then you're not doing it right." -- toad terrific