Is one human life worth more than another?

[smoothmoniker]

Sorry man, I don't have the time or the inclination to spew undergrad intro to philosophy notes back and forth.

Singer and others of his ilk get the question wrong. They want to drag a modernist theory of knowledge along with them into a post-modern world, and it just won't work. Ethics isn't rationally derivable from first principles.

Consequentialist Ethics are concerned with an abstract calculus that can be applied universally to all possible acts-of-a-kind. The world doesn't actually work like that, which is why Singer and others don't bother actually trying to LIVE the extreme positions they argue for. What is called for instead is moral wisdom, or virtue.

Put down the Singer (unless, of course, you need to study up for the midterm) and pick up some Alasdair MacIntyre instead. You'll find it a much better reflection of how human beings actually live and move and breathe as moral beings.

[sean]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So how does this all change when you have sexual feelings for little kids?

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Put down the Singer ... and pick up some Alasdair MacIntyre instead.

Despite my quoting Singer, I'm not inclined to dismiss MacIntyre's Aristotelianism. I think the concept of a tradition of virtue, and of categories of living that reflect character and a moral attitude are quite valid.

As I've said, I situate an ethological formulation of instinctive empathy as primary in ethical decision making (a kind of emotivism). Subsequent to it, I invoke a consequentialist argument to explain how we come by an objective understanding of harm.

I despise religion in all its manifestations*, so my formulation of 'virtue' also tends to follow a naturalistic, anti-authoritarian and existential path that champions personal responsibility over mass chanting in unison. Of the theological virtues -faith, hope and charity- only charity acquires a positive evaluation in my ethical schema, and its co-opting as a characteristic virtue by religious traditions seems to me a baseless self promotion.

But there is definitely room for some crossover between my position and MacIntyre's.

For me, being attracted to children isn't a moral problem, it is a simple fact. Where I think MacIntyre might have something useful to contribute (and I intend to read some of his work) is in that the primary moral problem faced by paedophiles is the apparent absence of any clear tradition of right action that addresses their own particular needs. In MacIntyre's terms, there is no narrative tradition of paedophilia that enables virtue.

In truth there is. That tradition is well established, but it has been driven underground and all but destroyed by the wave of persecution over recent decades. I think it's important to rehabilitate it. There is a rich tradition to draw on, a tradition of paedophiles who are 'great souls' and are not 'moral monsters', and who have written movingly about their lives and experiences.

In these difficult times, I think it takes some courage (not merely daring) to assert the potential for good in paedophiles, so I'm going to give myself a pat on the back just for suggesting it.

*Just want to add, I'm sorry about any offense this statement causes. I realise it's unfair and unreasonable. I know religion is important to many people, including some people I care about. I'm leaving it in as a declaration of bias.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by sean

I despise religion in all its manifestations*. . .

*Just want to add, I'm sorry about any offense this statement causes. I realise it's unfair and unreasonable. I know religion is important to many people, including some people I care about. I'm leaving it in as a declaration of bias.

Right off I would immediately remark, "You despise what you've been told about it." The unchurched very often display a depth of ignorance about religion and its manifestations that would scare a bathyscaphe. Where do you find the slogan Ignorance Is Strength again -- and who benefits in strength from that ignorance? Are you sure you'd want them benefiting?

Any system or organization can be gamed by any grifter for any reason. This does not in itself devalue the system or organization; it just illustrates the Biblical remark that "the love of money is the root of all evil." If the Bible had spoken of addictions in other than the Vulgate Latin sense (phrases like flammis acribus addictis), they'd have gotten in there too.

[sean]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Right off I would immediately remark, "You despise what you've been told about it." The unchurched very often display a depth of ignorance about religion and its manifestations that would scare a bathyscaphe. Where do you find the slogan Ignorance Is Strength again -- and who benefits in strength from that ignorance? Are you sure you'd want them benefiting?

No, not told, churched. I have deep but informed arguments with religion. Of the Christian virtues --faith, hope and charity-- only charity comes anywhere near a virtue in my estimation. Faith and hope are insidious vices.

In their book Should the baby live?, Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer examine the question that frames this thread: "Is one human life worth more than another?". They show how an intuitive answer to this question begs an assertion of the 'sanctity' of life.

This ideologically inspired slight of hand hinges on two separate meanings of the term 'worth'; the first an objective accounting of the value of a life, the second a subjective reality; the quality of a life.

My position is that the quality of a life may sometimes be less than the quality of any life, and that the courage to act on this conclusion by ending a life is inspired by comprehension of (paradoxically) the 'worth' of that life in the first sense. That comprehension goes far beyond cant and dogma.

Sometimes letting a baby die is an act of love. It isn't an easy option, and the suggestion that it might be is a gross insult to those people who have faced such a choice.