From: John K Clark (johnkc@well.com)
Date: Tue Mar 04 1997 - 21:46:32 MST
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Lee Daniel Crocker <lcrocker@calweb.com> On Mon, 3 Mar 1997 Wrote:
>I'm curious about your ethical judgment here of ethicists. Which ones
>in particular do you object to, and what distinguishes them from
>others who are paid for their opinions?
Astrologers say the many hours they spent studying their subject has made
them able to predict the future better than you or I can. Ethicists say that
the many hours they spent studying their subject has made them more ethical
than you or I. I can find no evidence that either claim is true.
Without exception, every pronouncement made by any self described "ethicist"
that I have ever head of can be put in one of 3 categories.
1) BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS. Example: Hitler's use of eugenics was bad.
2) STUPID: Example: Logic should only be used in trivial matters not in
matters of life and death, accordingly, 10 people getting killed
is NOT better than 10 thousand people getting killed because
arithmetic is irrelevant to morality.
3) EVIL: Example: If a man is suffering horribly and wishes to die we should
do everything in our power to make certain that the man does NOT get
his wish.
I don't have any use for ethicists, I already know that mass murder is wrong,
I don't think stupidity is a virtue, and if cruelty is ethical then I'm
unethical and proud of it.
John K Clark johnkc@well.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCzAgUBMxz2jX03wfSpid95AQEjIwTvWEtTYo5CfkZ+/kel2EkT0yKk409RK9kv
TPhpNLV50K5k5ULVQ3FJ8vSvtUWybIN2pPbC136/ecEf9B52Y2EP3FIfsFBEwi+i
NrAyh/HtjteHBm6ldcJ1BbOG7b2QsyiwoRsjXm+byYBO2q6awJv3H51pN5t9vPcD
U4hB82lBZYTInMeiYi4nEwVD9Csp/rI8kG4/WRjp+j5eF2qh1RQ=
=7+ov
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:13 MST