From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:50:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug27.000725.3682@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes...
>In article <25AUG199211121196@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug19.222409.7629@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes...
>>>What do you mean by "morally permissible"?
>>
>>Permitted by moral standards.  Morally right and good.  Not wrong.
> 
>Nice dictionary definition.  Next time a student is asked to write
>a paper on the meaning of Truth, I suppose they will get an A+ for
>the dictionary definition. :)

Apparently you wanted me to give you a complete moral theory or
something, but I don't think that's at all necessary in this context.
All I want is *your* judgment and *your* reasoning for distinguishing
the cases, which you've now given.  Thank you.

>>Now how about answering the question?  What is the difference between
>>creation ex nihilo and creation from preexisting materials such that
>>intelligent life created in the former manner is the owned property
>>of the creator to do with as he pleases, while exactly the same intelligent
>>life created in the latter manner has autonomy?
> 
>The reason I asked the question is because I believe we have to have the
>same definitions of what we mean by "morally permissible".  Otherwise, we
>will see things totally different.  But I will try...

I don't think we need to construct a complete analysis of the phrase
"morally permissible" in order to discover precisely where our
opinions differ.

>If I "create" something such as life by merely using nature's
>tools such as donating a sperm in order to fertilize an egg, then
>I would argue that it would not be morally permissible for me to
>destroy it because I only was a cooperating agent in its creation.
>It exists as a free seperate entity, not owned by me.

Is this a general principle of (moral conditions of) ownership?

>  On the
>other hand, If I created it out of nothing (an attribute only
>attributed to God) then it would not only be permissible for me to
>kill it physically, but to destroy it totally (for those who
>believe in the non-physical component of humans).  The fact that
>God has been known to do the former, but not the latter is an
>attribute of his infinite love for us, not some moral code of
>behaviour.

Let me see if I can reconstruct your argument more explicitly.
Are you assuming that God owns everything that he has created,
that anyone can do anything they like with whatever they have
created, and that we can't do anything we like with any intelligent
creatures we create (either by reproduction or genetic engineering)
because we're using "God's stuff" to do it with?  (But if it were
"our stuff" we could do what we liked?)
   My disagreement with this is the second principle:  that anyone
can do anything they like with whatever they have created.  In my
opinion, sentience carries with it emergent moral rights, no matter
how that sentience was formed, or from whose property.  (If person
A creates a sentient being from the property of person B, without
person B's permission, person B has lost that property.  Person A
may be obligated to compensate person B, but person B does not still
own the property (now a sentient being).)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc