From: schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Human-centered point of view
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:07:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr1.100951.4692@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <AWERLING.92Mar29221023@dante.nmsu.edu>, awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>> In article <1992Mar25.104316.4525@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>> 
>> John Robinson:
>>>>I disagree with this statement very 
>>>>strongly because I value human life considerably more than I animal life in 
>>>>general and crustation life in particular. 
>> 
>> Andrew Werling:
>> -> Why (to both points)?  (I.E. animal life in general *and* crustacean
>> -> life in particular).
>> 
>> robinson@ac.dal.ca (John Robinson) writes:
>>>Because I think it is not only natural, but also ethical to value highly 
>>>complex and evolved life forms more than less complex and evolved life forms. 
>>>I consider animal life to be more highly evolved than crustacean life and 
>>>human life substantially more evolved than either.
>> 
>> So it is the natural and ethical thing to do to value these particular
>> life forms over others.  "Highly complex and evolved" seems like you
>> took an arbitrary class (if you will) of lifeforms and segregated them
>> out as special.  Why do you do that?
>
>Actually, if you re-read my statement you'll see that I did not pick out 
>one class of animals and segregated them as special.  I described a 
>continuum.  We at the moment seem to be very near one end of it.
>
But why that particular continuum?  And how are we more complex than
any other mammal? (We are more complex than shellfish, granted)
Primates are also among the most primitive mammals, right after egg
layers, marsupials and shrews.
  
>>>In an ideal world, all transgressors would eventually be caught and dealt 
>>>with.  This world is far from ideal.  In such a situation it is necessary 
>>>to set priorities, and it is important to have some systematic foundation 
>>>for those priorities.        ^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> Why?
>
>Because if you don't have a systematic foundation for your priorities you 
>will set priorities in a haphazard fashion.  I would think that would be 
>fairly obvious.
>
If haphazzard priorities dont bother a particular individual, what would
make them bad?  

>>>The first point of our systematic foundation is the value of *human* life.  
>>>Given our limited resources, it seems important that we place that above 
>>>all else and give special attention to those among us who do *not* value 
>>>human life.  To see why this is necessary, examine the consequences of not 
>>>doing so.  Failure to make an effort to do so allows those who do not value 
>>>human life to roam relatively free in society, safe from societal 
>>>retalliation.  These people go around killing, maiming, raping, kidnapping 
>>>and robbing others and generally making life difficult for the rest of us.  
>>>In such an environment, commerce is stiffled and society as we know it 
>>>would crumble.  So it would seem that we must pay particular attention to 
>>>such individuals if we are to make any progress as a civilization.
>> 
As I understand it, the point of civilization was to maximize personal
liberty for all its members.  Those who join give up certain liberties,
in order to assure freedom from having others take those liberties at
the members' expense.  

>> You have not explained the value of human life.  You have only told
>> what will happen if we *don't* value it.  And, if we don't, society
>> will cease to exist.  Will this really harm life on Earth?
>
>Well, it will really harm *human* life on Earth.  If you can't figure out 
>why and how, I shan't bother to tell you. :-)
>
But assuming I don't think my own life is the most important thing in
the universe, might it's loss improve the state of life in general?  Or
that the loss of human life may not do more so?
 
>> Killing a human vs. killing lobster seem to me to have identical
>> cosmic influence.  In either case, a being dies.  
>
>Then I don't think you've given it much thought.
>
One thousand years from now, who will care whether it was you or the 
lobster that died?  Do you mourn for all the people who die each day?
 
>> In my opinion you have not shown adequate reason to stand up for a
>> human centered viewpoint.  By the way, is euthanasia of humans in
>> comas inexcusable (in relation to the statement you make about killing
>> another human being)?
>
>I see.  Basically, I believe I said that if we do not adopt a human centred 
>viewpoint, those things that we value (civilzation, society, medical care, 
>the technology we are using to carry on this discussion, etc.) will cease 
>to exist.  To me, that is reason enough.
>
>No.  Euthanasia of humans in comas is not acceptable to me.  There have 
>been cases recorded of people who have emerged from commas after more than 
>a decade.
>
And there are millions of cases of people who died from starvation for
totally preventable reasons.  If we spent less energy on saving those
with a slim chance of regaining any real life, we would have more for
those we could more easily help.  Our resources are not infinite, so
we must draw priorities.
 
>I do not feel that anyone has any business making suicide illegal.  If you 
>really wish to take *your own* life, as far as I'm concerned, that is fine. 
> Further along this line, if you wish to assist someone else, say someone 
>dying of a terminal disease, from taking their life, that is fine too so 
>long as they actually take their own life.  The action must be their own.  
>To extend this just a teensy bit farther, I believe that families should 
>have the right to terminate life support for their loved ones in situations 
>where recovery is highly unlikely (massive brain damage for example).
> 
No.  Suicide as a viable option is not acceptable to me.  There have
been cases recorded of people who tried to commit suicide while in a
state of mental illness and regretted it later when they recovered.

E.S.