Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site milano.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!caip!im4u!milano!wex
From: wex@milano.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Arguments against murder
Message-ID: <325@milano.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Jan-86 17:49:02 EST
Article-I.D.: milano.325
Posted: Mon Jan  6 17:49:02 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Jan-86 02:00:42 EST
References: <1100@oddjob.UUCP> <1730@druxu.UUCP> <1101@oddjob.UUCP>
Sender: wex@milano.UUCP
Distribution: na
Organization: MCC, Austin, TX
Lines: 61
Summary: a philosopher's reply

In article <1101@oddjob.UUCP>, apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) tries to present
some of his reasoning (not religiously-based) as to why one ought not to
murder adult human beings.  This is something which is quite difficult to do,
and Adrian makes several mistakes.  Lines beginning with > are from Adrian.

> ... I'll give you two arguments which suggest that it's generally wrong to
> kill people.
> (1) I start from a position of utilitarianism, so that an action which is
> intended to produce the greatest good for the greatest number is a moral
> action.

Unfortunately, Adrian is starting from a position of *global* utilitarianism;
that is, he feels that the principles of ut. are applicable by him to others.
This is a very weak position, the reasons for which are better suited to 
net.philosophy.  Let me give just one example, from real life, indicating some
of the problems:  In Jamaica, there are Rastafarians who use ganja in their
religion and in their everyday lives.  They believe that it increases their
abilities, intellect, etc.  They tried quite hard to convice me that I was
somehow incomplete because I didn't want to smoke it.  Now, if they held to the
principle above, they would believe that it was moral for them to force me to
smoke it.  Adrian can use his principle only because the large majority of his
readers have very similar ideas of what is `the good.'

> 
> (2) First argument. Adult human beings tend to possess a variety of qualities
> which I regard as valuable (for example, kindness, intelligence, creativity).
> I'll refer to these qualities collectively as "character" ...
> Corpses have no discernible character, so people with good characters are
> better for the world than corpses, all else being equal. I therefore enjoin
> you not to kill people with good character.  This argument does not apply to
> abortion, since the character of a foetus is little-developed.

Leaving aside the argument about the goodness of humans, I must point out that
here, as elsewhere, you equate fetus with human.  This is clearly a fallacy,
as debate here and elsewhere (including before the Supreme Court) has
indicated that there is no way to `prove' when these two become the same.

> Second argument. A society in which each member evaluated the character of
> her sisters and brothers, and felt free to kill those she regarded as bad, 
> would be a less pleasant society than one in which adult human life was
> generally protected.

I would like to point out that this, too, is an unsupported claim.

> Killing people, of whatever character, tends to diminish the general respect
> for adult life.

Again, no support for this is given.  As a counter-example, consider the
Vietnam conflict.  A great deal of opposition to the war could be traced to the
daily body counts, augmented by grisly pictures every night on our TV screens.
For years after (maybe even today) Americans were sensitive to when and where
our troops were used.  Carter was quite proud of the fact that no American
soldier was killed during his administration.

I'm sorry Adrian, but I don't see that you have advanced any argument against
killing adult humans.  If you'd like to try, I think we ought to move this to
net.phil.
--Alan Wexelblat
-- 
WEX@MCC.ARPA
...ut-sally!im4u!milano!wex