From: Phil Osborn (philosborn2001@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue May 14 2002 - 19:59:34 MDT
Such a great opportunity to test the Socratic method:
Ok, which possesses more of the attributes we consider
essential to being a "person," qualifying for all the
rights and considerations of such - a normal adult or
a carrot?
Too easy? Ok, how about a normal adult and a cat
embryo?
Still too easy? Choose one: normal adult vs. human
embryo...
Now, normal adult versus 3-month foetus..
Normal adult vs. 6-month foetus?
Normal adult vs. 9-month foetus?
Normal adult vs. new-born infant?
Koko vs. new-born infant?
Trained circus chimpanzee vs. new-born infant?
Trained blind-assist dog vs. new-born infant?
Try to come up with comparisons now that more clearly
delineate the reasons for your choices.
***********************************
It is an artifact of our altruist Judeo-Christian
heritage, plus Victorianism, that we invert our
evaluations of people, based on a kind of perverse
sense of fairness. Women and children first! Why?
Well, because it's our DUTY as gentlemen to protect
these poor unfortunates. Right. As a woman, I think
I would feel insulted by the implied condescention.
Perhaps I shouldn't mention this, but the likelihood
of such a situation actually coming to pass and
involving someone who has read this is so slight that
I will risk it. Much as I find many women attractive,
if I ever have to make that kind of life and death
choice of who gets to ride in the lifeboat, all other
things being equal, and not personally knowing the
parties, I will definitely choose adult men over
women, and especially over children.
Why? Because most adult men are worth more than most
adult women both in terms of their productivity and
their capacity to be an asset in a dangerous
situation. Even if those I allowed in the boat were
clearly to have no role whatever in determining out
likely survival, still, I would consider it a betrayal
of basic human values to choose people who are
generally of less value.
I'm NOT claiming that there aren't plenty of highly
valuable women out there, or that in such a random
sample there wouldn't be women who got left out who
might be more valuable than most of the men. I'm just
going by the law of averages. Most men are better
educated, more knowledgeable about life in general,
and more rational. Not hugely so, for sure, but
enough to notice.
Children, on the other hand, and especially infants,
are generally nowhere near as valuable as a a healthy
adult. It really sickens me to hear that some mother
- or father - has chosen his or her baby's life over
his or her own. For the typical infant these days, it
will take almost two decades before he or she will be
pulling his or her own weight, after a huge additional
investment by adults - and maybe not then. Meanwhile
- like there's a shortage of infants - in the
intervening two decades, potentially twenty
replacement infants could be provided, with the loss
of, on average, only half the years, whereas losing a
typical adult means throwing away that entire
investment - the average adult having around
twenty-five productive years ahead of him, with that
huge start-up cost already paid.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:05 MST