Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!cca!mirror!.misc!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <117400012@inmet>
Date: Wed, 24-Sep-86 08:02:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.117400012
Posted: Wed Sep 24 08:02:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 08:16:18 EDT
References: <7197@sun.uucp>
Lines: 58
Nf-ID: #R:sun.uucp:-719700:inmet:117400012:000:2431
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw    Sep 24 08:02:00 1986


[radford@calgary.UUCP ]
>In article <559@gargoyle.UUCP>, carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes:
>> [Jan Wasilewsky]
>> >Oded's proposal [ easy euthanasia] is non-coercive.  But it is morally 

I took the liberty to correct a typo (not mine) in the brackets...

>> >preferable even
>> >compared to encouraging  voluntary population control. What are the
>> >malthusians afraid of? That people may be brought into the world
>> >whose life will be not worth living? Well, let *them* be the judges
>> >of that.

>>[Richard Carnes's response]

>My guess is that Jan meant this as a satire on Carnes' utilitarian
>philosophy of the greatest good for the greatest number. 

>For those who don't believe Jan meant this as satire, I will point out
>that effective means of suicide have never been hard to come by, so this
>isn't much of a "proposal".

A "decriminalized but not legalized" case. 

But I made my position clear many times. I like people; I welcome
more of them around; I think they make more living space for each
other than they take; but I also think birth and death  ought  to
be  private. I am *not* into social tinkering of either population-
reducing or population-increasing kind. 

The "proposal" is in the nature of a challenge to the other  side
of  the debate: if you want that, say I, then you ought to prefer
this. Of course an element of satire is there (as the title makes
clear). Richard is quite right, however, to debate the points
as they stand. Satirical context makes no difference to logic  or
facts. If you say something, and I counter:  "on  your  lines,  I
can  prove  that pigs can fly" - the proper answer is not "gee,
you're being funny" - but "no, you can't, and here's why".

Utilitarianism is not my basic approach: but I believe that, con-
sistently  followed,  it  leads to libertarian conclusions, as it
often did in the hands of Mill. Liberty for all and happiness
for most are *not* antagonistic.

>I also note that the title of the posting, "A  Modest  Proposal",
>was  first used by Jonathan Swift in advocating that Irish babies
>be eaten.

Exactly. 

To make it even clearer: I  don't  recommend  committing  or  en-
couraging  suicide.  If  I did, I would do it for the sake of the
person involved - not to relieve traffic  congestion  (like  that
governor who said old people have a duty to die). But even *that*
is less heinous than imposed birth control.

			Jan Wasilewsky