Xref: utzoo talk.abortion:979 alt.flame:1648
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ptsfa!ames!hc!lll-winken!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!Thomas_E_Zerucha
From: Thomas_E_Zerucha@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame
Subject: Re: The Ethics of Killing
Message-ID: <3159@cup.portal.com>
Date: 13 Feb 88 00:55:24 GMT
References: <1603@imagen.UUCP> <9513@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 14
XPortal-User-Id: 1.1001.3273

>Not productive to philosophical argument
I do not consider this a debating game since it is a matter of human life and
death.  Various things which aren't philosophically interesting have to be
dealt with - If you jump off a tall building, you can consider the implications
(philosophically) of Gravity before you splatter on the ground below - but
that is not the way to deal with gravity - you should not jump off in the
first place.
     But since you are such an expert at analyzing "killing" and it's morality,
perhaps you can do the same thing for philosophy and logic itself?  Why should
I bother or accept logical or philosophical arguments?  What makes them right
or wrong or even valid?  If you are free to reduce killing to mere personal
opinion, then why should I not reduce philosophy to the same basis which
would make your arguments on killing irrelevant since you have not proved
that philosophy itself is a valid method of attacking the question.
(or is philosophy and logic right just because it is?).