Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!wivax!decvax!cca!charlie From: charlie@cca.UUCP Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Life as the basis of morality Message-ID: <5073@cca.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Jul-83 12:51:45 EDT Article-I.D.: cca.5073 Posted: Tue Jul 5 12:51:45 1983 Date-Received: Thu, 7-Jul-83 02:16:40 EDT Lines: 28 I disagree with the "human life as the basis of good" argument in a different way from most contributors. I believe that there can be no good in the absense of human-like life (a distinction for another essay), but neither can there be evil. Life is the medium in which the distinction exists but is not shaded either way by itself. I prefer to define good in terms of human happiness. That which causes people to be happy is good. That which causes them to be unhappy is bad. That which has mixed effects is the subject of all interesting problems. This system has some interesting side effects. To murder someone is not to commit a crime against them. The crime is against their survivors (who suffer their loss) and society at large (who live in greater fear that they may be murdered at any time). The "victim" will not hold it against you. It means that in the abortion debate, I see no evil in the loss of a fetus, but see plenty in the suffering it inflicts on the "right to life" people. If it happened in secret, it would lose ill-effects. Finally, if the arms race reached the point where the entire human race could be destroyed in a single painless instant (the death star?), I do not think it would be the ultimate disaster. I would like to think the human race could do better, but I know it could do worse. I'm presenting my views here because I believe they truly are different from those of most people. As we discuss whether there can be legitimate differences of opinion on moral issues, I thought a concrete example of a foreign value basis might help.