Harland, All very interesting, but not really responsive to the two questions I asked, each of which takes a simple yes or no. THEN comes the why or why not parts.
I ask these questions not to put you personally on the spot, but to illuminate what I think is the libertarian quandry. For the record, just to show that I have not just invented a concern with this kind of issue, at one time years ago I fervently stated to a liberal friend, during a fervent discusion on what needed to be done about global warming and persuing the non-agression principle in all its glory, that it was preferable for all of mankind to vanish utterly than for it to accept a condition of slavery. I have since changed my mind. Regards, Allen --- In [email protected], Harland Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Allen, > > The question is not whether I would "personally" commit murder, but whether > or not I would do so because I was a Federal official. As a Federal > official, I could not deny anybody life without due process of law. > > I would take the Federal Oath of Office, to uphold the Constitution, very > seriously. Brian Holtz previously wrote that the oath does not trump > personal beliefs, (as I understood him.) > > Even if you did want to kill somebody to save other lives, you still could > not argue that is was "justified." If you kill some innocent person to save > yourself or your family or your beloved country or even all of them, you do > it out of selfishness. The innocent victim you kill is not selfish as Brian > claimed; the killer and the survivors are the selfish ones. That cannot be > "justified" but perhaps could be forgiven. > > As for me personally, I do not promise to save your life by killing somebody > else. I might do it, but I might not. I don't make any promises. I do not > promise to kill anybody under any circumstances. Some people would, but many > would not. However, this is a religious kind of value. It is completely > wrong for politicians to criticize anybody for believing differently. We > politicians have no right attempting to "slam-dunk refute" a ZAP principle. > Would we attack Islam next? Judaism after that? > > Trolleys aside, we do have the opportunity to save lives by murder every > day. The Transplant Surgeon has that chance every day. Save lives; kill > somebody and steal her organs! Do you think we should take that branch? > That opportunity comes up every day. Would anybody approve? > > Harland Harrison > > > > on 5/7/07 9:42 AM, Allen Rice at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Harland, > > > > When it comes to believing words, I respect you too much to think it > > credible that you have really thought yours all the way through, when > > you say of Brian: "If you think the defense of 298,000,000 people > > can justify even one murder, I do not trust you in Federal office." > > > > Perhaps I misunderstand you, but does this mean that YOU personally > > would NOT take one life in order to save 298 million? > > > > If so, I must disagree, based on nothing but basic logic, sans > > trolleys and fat men of any sort. > > > > Surely you would agree that, given two possible outcomes of a > > branching situation, a) that one should live and 298 million should > > die, or b) that 298 million should live and one should die, that b) > > is the preferable outcome? If not, why not? > > > > If b IS the preferable outcome, then if one has the opportunity to > > force it over the less preferable one, shouldn't one take on the > > responsibility to do so? If not, why not? > > > > Regards, > > Allen Rice > >
