Rick, Erin,
If a terminally ill patient wants to die, isn't it a low quality pattern to
keep him alive against his will? It brings to mind the beautiful, gritty
book/movie "Bringing Out the Dead." A man in a coma was being kept alive
through defibrillations . . . this man had no real hope for survival, he was
not a source of thought, so by letting him a die we are not in essence losing
a source of thought. If a man lives his life bed-ridden and without the use
of his senses and in constant agony, isn't it actually moral to let him die?
I hadn't thought about this during my first death penalty debate, but isn't
it possible to separate Quality sources of thought from non-Quality ones?
Ted Bundy may be a source of thought, but not a substantial one and certainly
not one that will contribute to the intellectual level of society. So should
there be regrets about killing him? (According to Pirsig's system of course .
. . personally, I am against capital punishment in all cases). However, if
he is properly confined, it can be ensured that all the damage he might be
able to do through hate pamphlets or letters or whatever will be eliminated.
What would be the more moral decision here? Is there even a difference
between the two? Maybe it all depends upon whether or not hundreds of years
later people will look back and say that Ted Bundy would have strengthened
our society if he would have been allowed to live.
Rasheed
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:58 BST