From: Max More (maxmore@primenet.com)
Date: Sat Mar 01 1997 - 10:16:12 MST
At 04:13 PM 3/1/97 +0100, Anders wrote:
>
>Exactly. In one of the articles in Nature Axel Khan discussed the ethical
>principle Kant proposed: Human life should never be thought of as only a
>means, but also as an end. While I disagree a lot with Kant in general, I
>think this principle is quite sound. The trouble comes when defining what
>human life is; is a brainless clone human? An undifferentiated cell mass?
For Kant, I think it's clear that he meant not biological humans but beings
possessing rationality. In fact, Kant's view of ethical standing has been
used by pro-choice philosophers in the abortion debate to support the
reasonableness of aborting a fetus. A fetus being human (and a human once
developed enough) but not a person.
Max
Max More, Ph.D.
more@extropy.org
http://www.primenet.com/~maxmore
President, Extropy Institute, Editor, Extropy
exi-info@extropy.org, http://www.extropy.org
(310) 398-0375
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:13 MST