Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ariel.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!ariel!norm From: norm@ariel.UUCP (N.ANDREWS) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Re: Morality and Democracy Message-ID: <803@ariel.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Dec-84 20:54:47 EST Article-I.D.: ariel.803 Posted: Wed Dec 19 20:54:47 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 20-Dec-84 23:39:42 EST References: <156@tekchips.UUCP> Organization: AT&T-ISL, Holmdel, NJ Lines: 41 > >Rather, I was attempting to raise a meta-issue. >I picked slavery "out of the hat" as an example of something >that we all agree (we do, don't we?) is "obviously immoral", but that >at one time in parts of our country was an accepted practice. >People vehemently argued for it to be continued. > Steve Vegdahl > Computer Research Lab. > Tektronix, Inc. > Beaverton, Oregon The ethics of abortion and the ethics of slavery are NOT obvious to everyone. That's why there was once such strife over the slavery issue, and why this newsgroup exists today. However, I think the slavery issue is a good issue to analyze, since the analysis can shed some light on the abortion issue. Suppose that either: 1.) Octopus-like intelligent creatures, masters of interstellar travel visited earth, coming in peace, or 2.) A laboratory, investigating the ability of chimps to use language, came across an abnormally intelligent chimp, a chimp-genius that became fluent in American sign language, and Supose either one of these creatures was wantonly killed (or enslaved, tortured or otherwise abused.) In the case of such treatment, say a killing, should the perpetrator of the killing be tried for the murder of a "person"? If so, why? In the case of the creature's "enslavement", should the perpetrator of the enslavement be tried for the enslavement of a "person"? If so, why? If not, why not? And, more generally, is it ever really in anyone's long-range self-interest to attempt to achieve values through slavery or murder? If some behavior generally considered "moral" is not in one's long-range self- interest, why should anyone care, in that respect, to be "moral"? Is one's long-range self -interest ever immoral? Are "pro-lifers" able to answer these questions rationally? Are pro-choicers able to find a rational basis for individual rights and the rule of objective laws? I'll tune in next week to find out... Norm Andrews AT&T Information Systems HO1C325 Crawfords Corner Road Holmdel, New Jersey 07733 vax135!ariel!norm (201) 834-3685