pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (03/08/84)
In determining when it is right to kill humans I think that a general rule is (or has been) understood that cases in which we are justified in taking life are those in which the humans we kill exhibit behavior which is evil (life threatening) and/or over which they presumably have control. This has included killing in self defence and going to war with Nazi Germany. I don't think that kind of killing is really the issue here. It seems to me that Sophie's value system (the way I understand it) allows killing for other reasons. e.g. for behaviour or conditions over which the one being killed has no control. This may include a deformed infant, a senile individual, a 6 week old fetus, etc. (I am only giving examples, not attributing them to anybody). The problem people, such as myself, have with this "quality of life" ethic is that the victims are innocent and the lines drawn (between who lives and who dies) are arbitrary--base on another's judgment. Note that the "quality" is determined from an outside perspective. We can't take onto account that an individual may actually think his life to be very much worth living, though we percieve that he will only suffer and have a "ruined" life. I think that when the value of human life is placed on characteristics over which individuals have no control, we are in for some trouble. Who determines the characteristics of "worthy" human life and what really prevents them from being applied in an arbitrary fashion? That is what we need to discuss. I don't think we can carry over our justification for killing in self defence to killing because of a physical condition. Paul Dubuc