Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Vet kills his baby.
Message-ID: <381@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Feb-85 13:29:57 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.381
Posted: Mon Feb 25 13:29:57 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Feb-85 11:54:20 EST
References: <319@cadre.ARPA> <361@cybvax0.UUCP> <353@enmasse.UUCP> <365@cybvax0.UUCP> <8273@watarts.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 51
Xref: watmath net.religion:5766 net.politics:7836
Summary: 

In article <8273@watarts.UUCP> dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) writes:
> Whoah, boy. Just because people do it doesn't make it right. 

I never said that something is right because people do it.  See response to
McLinden for further explanation.

> Hey, wait a minute here. Who said that a particular person has to want
> somebody in order for that person to have a right to live?  With that type of
> reasoning, why don't we just go out and shoot all the derelicts? 
> Who wants them? They're no good to us anyways.

Good point.  However, say that derelect has a relative?  Who gets angry?
Rights are good working rules for staying out of trouble.
Formalizing them helps prevent conflicts between opposing ideas of rights.

> So, if I read you correctly, you're saying that the real test of humanity
> is the desire of someone, either a person or an organization to take care
> of these people.

Real close: it's not really a test of humanity, but of forces for survival.
That's why there are humane laws for animals and the ASPCA.  For humans,
support is more general.

> A problem:  YOU ARE PUTTING AN ECONOMIC VALUE ON LIFE
> 
> If this is so, what indeed is the value of a life?
> Is the only real value in life that which makes a person useful to society?
> And, finally, is life worth retaining if it is economically unadvaisable?
> I thought a life was precious, no matter how uneconomic was its contibution
> to society. Or are we only worth the chemicals in our make-up?!?!!!

Much as people are unwilling to face it, there is an economic value to life.
Maybe there shouldn't be, but there is.  The fact is, that if more money is
spent for saving/prolonging human lives, more human lives will be saved/
prolonged.  No matter how much money is spent.  Each society places values
on human lives in a host of different direct and indirect ways.  From
$5000 to have a contract killing, to $X per life saved to develop a new drug,
to X lives lost per million tons of coal mined.

We decide how much lives are worth.  One individual may be worth nothing to
one person, and much to another.  They need not be all worth the same.
Historically, they haven't.  The simplest, most direct example is that
slaves sold at different prices.  Another example comes from the
concentration camps, were very exact values were placed on the lives of
the inmates.  Generally, we dislike it when the value of a life is considered
too low or too high (such as spending too much to save the life of a
street person.  You can bet that they aren't going to be the recipients
of the latest, most expensive medical techniques.)
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh