Re: Values

Peter C. McCluskey (
Sun, 15 Dec 1996 11:09:21 -0800

70023.3041@CompuServe.COM (Paul Wakfer) writes:
>1. Being alive is the irreducible primary to all other values. Without it
>obtaining, all others are meaningless. Therefore, it must rationally have the
>highest of all possible values in ones hierarchy. This implies that its value
>(if comparable at all - see my next point) must rationally be extremely much
>higher than the value of, say, going out to dinner and a movie once a week.

While a person must be alive to hold values, that doesn't imply a
need to value continuation of life.
I see nothing irrational about valuing one's children's wellbeing
highly enough that one is prepared to accept instant death in
return for increased happiness of one's children. (I don't hold such
a value system, I merely see nothing objectively wrong with it).

Peter McCluskey |                        | "Don't blame me. I voted | | for Kodos." - Homer Simpson |     |