Francis - Interesting. I'd extend your example from murder/abortion to capital punishment to include not providing for the infant born to a destitute mother or family that would have preferred to have aborted the fetus. It seems to me that an infant dying bit by bit because of inadequate nourishment is worse than aborting the fetus. Why aren't those so vocal about opposing abortion equally vocal about providing for starving children. Instead they tolerate doing away with school lunch programs. Something is really cockeyed there. Jim
On Jul 1, 9:19 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1 Jul., 17:28, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > So this debate takes place against a> universal background of agreement: > don't murder. > > Ah but, Alan, "murder" itself is a complex term which needs to be > defined. And not all definitions are the same. Even if we take a > fairly, old, generally accepted legal definition - "when a person, of > sound memory and discretion, unlawfully killeth any reasonable > creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice > aforethought, either express or implied." (Blackstone, Commentary on > the Laws of England [1765-69]) - questions arise. Particularly with > regard to the qualification "unlawfully". What if the law is unjust, > allowing for all sorts of legal killing, what we might term "judicial > murder"? Whatever one's view of abortion may be, for example, the fact > that it is legally allowed in a society automatically means, according > to Blackstone's definition, that it cannot be defined as murder. > > Let us take the example of the position taken by many in the USA who > campaign against abortion, on the grounds that it is murder, while at > the same time condoning capital punishment. Both are legally > permissible. So in this case, in order to define murder, one must move > beyond legal definitions. But here it becomes difficult. Can one say > that all killing is wrong? Or does one define a particular subset of > killing? If not the legal ones, than what criterea does one use? > > I realise that your scholastically grounded position defines moral > precepts on the basis of derivation from general principles. But there > are many of us who do not share your philosphical position. (Apart > from the question as to the stage at which a fertilised embryo can be > considered to be a human being - and no, I don't want to discuss that > here at the moment ... Chris would just accuse me of throwing hand- > grenades!) > > Francis --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
