From: Dick.Gray@bull.com <Dick.Gray@bull.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> Date: 11 January 1999 23:54
Subject: Re: Property and life
>OK, let's not quibble over intangibles; how about your body then? Would you
>at least agree that your body is your property? If so, then doesn't your
>property right in your body entail a right to keep that body alive (using
>your own resources)?
I don't have a right to live. I have a very strong 'wish' to live. I want to live and will do (almost) anything in my power to continue living. At a very basic level, I've dimissed morality as a creation with no validity and based my actions around aesthetics - ie what I liek and dislike. And I like living. And I like having access to things. And I like other people to be nice to me, so I tend to treat them in a way which will cause them to do so.
>>Since property includes life itself, there can be no higher good than
>>protection of property.
>>Since carbon compunds include life itself, there van be no higher good
>>the protection of carbon compunds.
>Huh? In what possible sense do carbon compounds "include" life? Certain
>types of compounds make life as we know it possible, but saying they
>*include* life is as sensible as saying that the electromagnetic spectrum
>"includes" _Deep Space Nine_. Can't you think of a real analogy?
Life is almost entirely Carbon Hydrogen and Oxygen, with a few trace elements.