Travis Edmunds wrote: > >> If one of my kids needed some special organ (say, the heart) and it >> happened that the only one available (compatibility, etc) was _yours_, >> I might try to kill you to harvest that organ. >> >> That doesn't make it right. > > Disclaimer: I didn't render my own opinions in my original post on this > subject. That being said however, I think you're missing the point. > No, I am just pushing it to the ultimate consequences. It's like a _reductio ad absurdum_ proof :-)
> If you grew up in a society where killing was commonplace, > I doubt very much the taking of human life would bother you > in the least. Unless in an > intellectual way you disliked the fact that a sentient being was forced > into non-existence. > But it's the same thing, isn't it? We are going to sacrifice some few unimportant lifes to save one important life. It's like war: everybody is a pacifist, until we see a small gain for us at the expense of killing some strangers. > On the same note though you bring up an interesting > point. You're saying that you would cross your own moral, ethical lines in > order to save the life of a loved one, all the time understanding that what > you're doing is wrong. But of course the concept of wrong comes full circle > back to my point. > My point - I guess I am repeating myself - is that morality choices done in despair can't be the basis for a morality system. People kill for a piece of bread [or a gram of cocaine]. Alberto Monteiro _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
