From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 09 2003 - 13:50:44 MST
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Rafal writes
>
>> ### Most people with severe deformities resent their disability (a
>> fact). We have to use probabilistic arguments about the child, and
>> assume that she will develop the common attitude, rather than her
>> mother's idiosyncratic distaste for limbs. Therefore, the Golden
>> Rule (in the form of veil of ignorance) demands that we act in the
>> predicted interest of the child, and stop/punish her mother.
>
> Of course, I balk when I read phrases like "Golden rule demands",
> "we act", and "predicted interest". Surely you feel some unease
> with these terms and all that they imply.
### No, why?
When we see a passers-by being assailed with a knife, we predict this might
result in bodily harm to her, and since we would not like to be bodily
harmed ourselves, the Golden Rule demands that we act in the predicted
interest of that person. I hope you wouldn't indifferently wait and see her
die, rather than call the police, would you?
----------
> To wax satirical for a moment, I can just see you "acting"
> to "save the children" of religious non-conformists who
> don't want their children enhanced with the latest gadgetry
> or genes.
### Only if failure to enhance would result in significant, irreversible
loss of freedom, suffering, and risk of unwanted death. Same as cutting off
limbs, or not treating a bleed with a transfusion.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST