From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat May 18 2002 - 01:26:09 MDT
Silly method actually. You leave loose "all the rights and
considerations of such". Obviously an adult has more rights
than a child (like right to vote). But that is far from
claiming a child has no rights at all, much less something so
basic as the right to not be killed.
On before-birth or foetus rights, the line is wavery. But it is
not wavery once birth occurs. So why pretend the two are
equivalent?
Women and children first? Different question than the one at
hand. Why switch to it? You want to use a lifeboat situation
and how you would think in it as supposedly determining what the
rights of children (or women it seems) should be relative to
adult males? Are you kidding?
Adult men are worth more in terms of productivity than adult
women??? Says who? There is no basis for such a wild statement
and I am utterly amazed that an otherwise apparently intelligent
person would make such a bogus claim.
For sure there is one difference between the sexes. More men
are chauvanistic than women are! Averages? On average women
have better endurance and are as cool headed or more so than men
in emergencies. Especially in ones where brute force and
immediate action will not save the day. Women generally are
more knowledgeable about aspects of life that most men are
relatively oblivious to. But enough meaningless generalities.
You are claiming a lifeboat situation. By definition only a
very limited number of people are involved. Will your decision,
although it is certainly not yours to make for most of these
hypothetical people, make any great difference in the viability
of the human race? Almost certainly not. So how exactly are
you betraying humanity if you do not honor your bias? Does your
decision in a hypothetical extreme situaiton (or rather what you
think you would do from your armchair) have anything at all to
do with the actual question at hand? I don't see how.
Children are our future, even if we live indefinitely long.
Some would rather see the children survive than adults whose
life (pre medical nanotech and such) may already be more than
half over. It is an individual choice. There is no right or
wrong way to make it.
Are you claiming that lifeboat situations actually say anything
meaningful about general ethics and the value of different sorts
of people? If so, you are falling into a common error.
Why are you bringing this up in this manner? Are you going out
of your way to be offensive?
- samantha
Phil Osborn wrote:
> 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 - 09:14:11 MST