> For much of my life until my late 20s, I was a LeFebvrian
> pacifist. I've never thrown a punch, and I hope I don't have
> to.
Do yo mean that you were (as I am) an admirer of Bob LeFevre's?
> But I am no longer willing to believe that all lives are
> equally valuable. My life is worth more than Geoffrey Dahmer's
Whoaa!!! We usually use market prices to assess 'valuable' within a
social context. If someone rich values Dahmer as a research
specimen, or as a contract killer, and outbids what a 'hit' on you
would cost (around $1 000 for a Russian-sourced 'hit' -- lots of
kids in St. Petersburg said they wanted to be hit-men in a recent
poll) -- does that mean that Dahmer lives and you die?
Or do you mean a more obscure 'internal' concept of value? Dahmer
may think his life is worth more than yours is (to him). How do you
suggest we resolve this clash of 'values'? Of metrics, even?
BTW: The British Government values a 'typical' human life at 180 000
UKP. That's how much they'll -- grudgingly -- spend to save a life
via road improvements and so on.
> and if I have to end the latter to protect the former, I
> have to do so, and take responsibility for it. If I can
> prevent it from happenning in the first place, that's even
> better. But sometimes we don't get that choice.
But doesn't that just mean "If it's him or me, it's gonna be him"?
Which hardly adds anything at all to our understanding, since nearly
everyone on Earth thinks that way (at least where there's some
social distance involved).
/ /\ \
--*--<Tony>--*--
Tony Hollick, LightSmith
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/la-agora (LA-Agora Conference)
http://www.agora.demon.co.uk (Agora Home Page, Rainbow Bridge Foundation)
http://www.nwb.net/nwc (NorthWest Coalition Against Malicious Harrassment)