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