From: Smigrodzki, Rafal (SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu)
Date: Thu May 09 2002 - 10:37:42 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
I'm also aware that in my society, the taking of the lives
of one's children is against the law. (I will argue another
time that up to a certain age, parents ought to have the
legal freedom to kill their children, and that there should
be a ceremony denoting the moment that the child becomes a
part of the community. But I don't want to advocate final
states here---only the general direction (freedom) towards
which we should move.)
### As you mention later, there seems to be a huge gap between our ideas.
The above paragraph is the best illustration. Let me note for the benefit of
persons perusing our conversation, that I emphatically disagree with you on
the desirability of legalizing infanticide, and my continued participation
in this thread does not indicate an even theoretical willingness to consider
such action, merely curiosity about the reasoning you might adduce on your
behalf.
Specifically, since this is the extropian list, I wonder which of the
Extropian Principles can you use as moral grounding for your deadly ideas.
Remember, the contents of the archives will be around, to haunt Extropians
for a long time.
---------
Well, Rafal, the gulf between us is very great. It's so
great that I hope you don't mind some personal questions.
(1) What is your cultural heritage? (2) Have you ever
heard, in childhood perhaps, the saying "Beware the man
coming to do you a favor" or something similar? (It's
quite customary in the U.S., I thought.) (3) Have you
ever heard of the acryonym MYOB?
### 1) Silesian, a perfect explanation for my propensity to
force abstention from infanticide on others, whether they like it or not 2)
"God save me from my friends, and I'll deal with my enemies myself" 3) MYOB,
as in "Stay away while I kill my kid"
----------
Lee:
Under no tradition that I can think of does "moral behavior"
include the clauses that you state. It *never* includes a
willingness to force it on others. "Moral" and "ethical"
behavior *always* applies to one in terms of one's restraint
of one's own actions.
### This is totally at odds with moral reasoning as
expounded by almost all philosophers, from Plato onwards, until the advent
of moral relativism. Are you a moral relativist?
--------
You're perhaps thinking of the traditionally enshrined
dictates against murder, theft, and so on. These arise
quite naturally from other reasons, and have little to
do with morality or ethics, it happens.
### This is indeed so puzzling as to be bizarre - murder not
unethical?
### As it happens, my emotional attachment to dogs is
### sufficient to overcome my unwillingness to meddle.
And so what about your neighbor's emotional attachment
to your children, in that he cannot stand to see them
grow up Godless?
### It's none of his business. Growing up Godless does not
infringe on the moral rights of children (see below how I derive them), and
if he thinks otherwise, before paying me a visit he'd better get a bigger
gun than the police force I am supporting with my taxes.
------
We quickly degenerate into might makes
right. I hope, by the way, that you obey the law with
respect to what you may and may not do about your
neighbor's dogs.
### There is no right without might, but this is just an
aside.
### Now, practically speaking, would you really idly stand
### by, seeing your neighbor drown her five kids in a
bathtub?
No, you've got me there: I'd assume that it was an
aberration
of some kind. In an emergency, who knows what I'd do? But
I
might indeed believe that some temporary insanity was
involved
(why would he or she be doing in front of the neighbors,
after
all?).
### What do you mean by an aberration ? A new ethical
category? Like "It's unusual, so it might be wrong but if it happens every
day, it must be OK"? And what if she is not doing it in front of the
neighbors, you just happen to hear screams? Does it mean she is possibly
sane, therefore has the inalienable right to kill he kids?
---------
### How about a neighbor letting her hemophiliac child bleed
### to death after a minor injury, rather than have the
child
### infused with the appropriate clotting factors? Would
you
### really?
Yes, if this wasn't obviously an aberration of some kind.
If
the parents or legal guardians believe that God will do the
right thing, and that God's will be done, I should butt out.
Someday I hope the Scientologists show up in force at your
house and decide that you're abusing your children because
you're neglecting their engrams. After they've got enough
influence and power in society, you know, they'll be able
to get the appropriate laws passed, you know. And then
you'll be hoist by your own petard.
### Let me engage in some metaethical analysis here. I am
using the principles of respect for life, truth, and liberty (in this
order), with the ethical heuristics of reciprocity (a.k.a. moral symmetry),
and Rawl's veil of ignorance, as well as Popperian epistemology, and
scientific and naïve psychology, to derive my position on the rights of
children, specifically, their moral subjectship, right to live, right to
freedom. In practical terms, if their legal guardians, be it the biological
parents, or other persons, are found morally wanting in this context (e.g by
failing to respect the child's right to live), the ethical framework I use
dictates that they should be deprived of their rights, insofar as needed to
assure the child's rights.
You, however, seem to accept a reified concept of "Freedom"
(in adults), as the supreme value, trumping the value of life, under the
assumption that violation of freedom as defined by you must result in
unfavorable outcomes. Your ideas about the functioning of democratic and
near-democratic societies sound like you have never seen one. You also have
a strong but inconsistent legalistic attitude - at one point you say you may
not interfere with legal guardians of a child, a bit later you worry about
the possibility of laws being passed, with which you might disagree. This is
coupled with an appalling amount of callousness, a readiness to see a child
bleed slowly to death, if needed for you "Freedom" to continue.
I also resent your grouping me with the scientologists.
After all, it is you, not me, who is advocating infanticide, and who denies
the immorality of murder.
You are wrong. Saving children from murderous or abusive
parents will not result in the ascendancy of Scientology. The use of
democracy as a tool for governance is superior to anarchy. Property rights
may not be applied to humans. Etc, etc.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:56 MST