Hi Platt, Squad,
First, let me apologize for incorrectly attributing the "monkey opening
a coconut with a stone
is clearly an example of the intellect" quote. It originates from GLOVE
and not Xcto@aol.com
(who still remains nameless).
JONATHAN
>> Who says Lila has more than biological value? To me the sanctity of
>> human life applies to every living person. It applies to the aged,
the
>> young, the mute, the blind, the crippled, the paralyzed, the "simple"
>>
>> Their lives are valued just because they are ALIVE. That's a >
biological classification.
>
PLATT
>May I suggest the following Pirsigian change to your assertion:
>
>"Their lives are valued just because they are HUMAN. That's an
>inorganic, biological, social and intellectual classification."
>
As soon as you do that, you are falling into a trap. Richard Rigel asks
"Does Lila have quality" and Phaedrus then waffles about how much
biological vs. social vs. intellectual value she has. Behind the
question lurks another: "Is Lila worth saving?". The sanctity of human
life applies to every breathing individual irrespective of her/his
social or intellectual value.
..
>
>Are there not fundamental ethical values that call for the
>sacrifice of human life? If not, what do you say to those who
>died on Omaha Beach so that you and I would be free to discuss
>fundamental ethical values?
In brief, I would say that there is an ethic of laying down life to save
life (look who they were fighting against!). The value (life) is a
biological one, but the arbitration (how many lives, and whose life) is
at a more complex level.
I look forward to discussing more of this sort of thing next month.
Jonathan
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:36 BST