Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcc6.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc6!ix415
From: ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.religion,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Another small question.
Message-ID: <2007@sdcc6.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Apr-85 21:27:33 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcc6.2007
Posted: Thu Apr 11 21:27:33 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Apr-85 06:47:11 EST
References: <1521@decwrl.UUCP> <868@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 57
Xref: watmath net.flame:9225 net.religion:6632 net.philosophy:1642

> Because human society decided (quite rationally) that human beings' lives are
> not things to be toyed with, that each human being has rights to life, and
> that (more often than not) human beings are not food.  The value of human
> beings' lives is considered a priority of our morality.

This is not a very sound historical statement on the basis for morality.  First
of all there have been numerous societies that loved toying with human
lives (our favorite Nazi's, and many 'uncivilized' tribes).  Many groups
parcticed human sacrifice and many groups believe that human life is
simply not that sacred.  Depending upon the group in power, the value of
human life (and whose life is to be considered human) is not a clear
cut, absolute answer.
> 
>> Here was Ken's question, something like why couldn't the monkey be a
>> human child.?
> 
> Because some people realize that if you make "certain" human lives dispensable
> your life could be the next one in the dispensable pile.  Honestly, Ken, why
> are your gross and inept questions always so easy to answer?
> 
That sure hasn't bothered almost any country or society that I can think
of in all of history.  Our beloved U.S. had no problem killing the
slaves just as if they were property, Russia killed off quite a few
wealthy peasants because they were in the way and our favorite friend,
Hitler showed that we do pick out "certain" people to get rid of.  And
the problem that you propose (your life being the next one) is exactly
the problem that ensues.  Look at the French Revolution.  That is
exactly what happened, they started killing groups of people and little
by little it turned into a massacre of everyone killing everyone else.
And this is the civilized west.  Look at many of the South American
countries today.  There are enough executions and murders there alone to
refute your premise that you don't kill people out of some ambiguous
societally developed value of human life.
> 
> Hasn't that been answered?  (Where do morals come from) They come from the
> requirements of a society to hold itself together and survive.
> -- 
Very few societies will claim that their morality comes from the need
for survival (we don't, Russia doesn't, who does?)  Most societies feel
that they have some 'higher' moral basis that guides their policies and
international dealings (i.e. the need for world wide communism, or
democracy) and if one looks at these moralities that are supposed to
ensure survival, why are there so many wars (are they all for
survival??) and why do we stockpile weapons?  In order to survive??
That seems a little presumptuous to say that every single country
fighting a war is soing so because they are in danger of survival.
Someone has to start them, no?

Before you comment on how easy a question is to answer, you might think
about coming up with an answer that isn't this obviously wrong.
I don't mean to make this sound like a flame, but what you proposed as
an easy explanation of Ken's problem has *absolutely* no basis in
history and if you're trying just to stick with modern society, it
doesn't work especially well even there.  Forgive the flame, but if you
want to stick with your answer, you'll need to do alot of explaining.

				Rick  (ix415@sdcc6.UUCP)