From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Resolving abortion through legal and moral reasoning
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 19:37:11 GMT

In <1992Dec11.021446.9946@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.202706.8756@eco.twg.com> 
>chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:
 
>>   * Laws should attempt to increase the level of happiness
>> within a society, by providing "the greatest good for the
>> greatest number".
 
>The problem with this approach is that it often places 
>societal interests above the rights of the individual.  
>People can become enslaved, tortured, killed, etc. if 
>that so happens to cause the level of happiness in society 
>to increase as a whole. 
 
>[...]
 
>I think you're presuming that the protection of
>individual rights is a "Bad Thing" if it causes
>the level of happiness in society to decrease. 
>Can you briefly explain your reasoning behind
>that assumption?  
 
That's a good question.
 
My answer is: Human nature is such that it's hardly
ever cost-effective to take away individual rights.
 
If you take away a right, you have to deal with three
negative factors: The financial cost of preventing
people from exercising their rights; the misery of
the people who have been deprived of their rights; 
and the low-level anxiety of the rest of the population, 
who have to worry that their rights will be the next ones
to go. 
 
Only on rare occasions will the benefits of revoking
a right be greater than these three negatives. When
this happens, I think that the right can revoked
without ill effect. Examples would be: The forfeiture
of rights by convicted criminals, the use of censorship
in matters of national security, and the limitations on
property rights enforced by anti-discrimination laws.
 
I've been trying to think of a case where restricting 
individual rights would increase the level of happiness 
within society, and yet still be a "bad thing". I
spent _all_ _weekend_ doing this, and couldn't come
up with anything.
 
>[...]
 
>Can you come up with a convincing argument that
>infanticide should be illegal in ALL instances,
>according to the first school of thought?
 
Sure. The first question to ask is: Who benefits from
laws which prevent infanticide, and who suffers?
 
Clearly, the people who suffer are the people who, in the
immortal words of DJR, "desperatly desire dead babies".
The people who benefit are the people who think that babies
are worth preserving, even if they have to pay extra taxes
to take care of them until they're self-supporting. 
 
To analyze the law, we take the number of people in the
first group and multiply it by the average level of misery 
the law inflicts on them. We compare this to the number
of people in the second group, multiplied by the average
level of happiness that the law provides for them. It's
possible to argue about how to estimate the "level of misery" 
and the "level of happiness", but I think that it's clear
that the anti-infanticide group is far ahead.
 
[Actually, current laws against infanticide are based on
the constitutional recognition that infants are persons.
The above argument shows how these laws could be supported
even if infants were not considered persons. It is similar
to the reasoning behind laws that make it illegal to hunt
bald eagles.]
 
Now, it's theoretically possible that some infants would just
be too expensive to raise, and that fewer people would be 
interested in coming up with the money, and that these infants
would wind up dying. You could call this "infanticide", but it
has to be pointed out that this is happening today...wanted
children are dying, because they need expensive medical care
that their parents can't afford.
 
>>Charles Don Hall
>Doug Holtsinger
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:51808 alt.abortion.inequity:5857 soc.men:21082