From: Barbara Lamar (blamar@satx.rr.com)
Date: Fri Jul 25 2003 - 09:45:32 MDT
> Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> ... then the question becomes whether sins of commission are
> greater or lesser than sins of omission.
Following this thread had been valuable to me personally, because it
reminded me to consider this question with respect to my own actions.
Legally, I am required to "stop and render aid" at the scene of any car
crash I'm involved in. "Defense of others" is an affirmative defense in
criminal cases, but it would not get you very far if you were accused of the
crime of killing a doctor who performs abortions. "Aiding and abetting"
someone in the commission of a crime is a crime in itself, and yet
conscientious objection is not a recognized defense in tax evasion cases.
Without even looking at other cultures (such as, for example, cultures in
which one has a duty to avenge the murder of one's family member by killing
members of the murderer's family), it seems clear that there is ambiguity in
the legal system with respect to the duty one owes to other people,
particularly with respect to crimes of omission.
Moving from the legal to the moral -- it's relatively easy to state that
Robert's genocidal speculations were {crazy, wrong, despicable, ... ,
stupid }; it's far more difficult to refuse to take part in non-productive
or destructive government projects, such as the over-building of the nuclear
arsenal (consider the lives that might have been saved if the resources
dedicated to this had instead been dedicated to more constructive goals).
One can refuse to take part in this by not paying income taxes (which one
can legally do by earning only minimal income, as I did when I lived in the
woods). But in doing this, one loses the monetary power to support private
research and to support political campaigns of people who might possibly
influence government policy and so forth.
>So in the spirit of not
> "saying nothing" and "tolerating" that situation I will ask
> the rhetorical question "*What* is each of us doing to
> prevent those deaths?"
I don't have any well-formed goals beyond trying to influence the political
process by working on amicus curiae briefs in certain lawsuits, presenting
testimony in legislative committee hearings, and purchasing stock or loaning
money to fund promising research.
> It might be interesting from a bioethical standpoint to put
> Truman's justification (using the bomb instead of troops)
> and Hitler's arguments (for eliminating the Jews) side-by-side
> to see where the similarities and dissimilarities are.
Yes, I think it would be.
> I believe that "War is Hell". I also believe that most
> people on the list do *not* think we are at war.
I agree. I don't consider the things I mentioned above (trying to influence
the political process and supporting research) mere hobbies. They are a
matter of life and death to me personally, as I am already 53 years old, and
though I don't suffer from any particular health problem at the moment, my
odds of dying young are at present quite high.
I wouldn't hesitate to kill someone who was directly threatening me or
someone I love. I *know* this about myself, because I have been in that
situation twice. As it turned out, I did not have to kill anyone, but I was
fully prepared to to do if it had been necessary to protect myself.
But I find this question extremely disturbing:
> "Are we are willing to sacrifice humanity due to
> personal or moral repugnance?"
In the same way that I avoid dealing with a person whom I observe cheating
someone else (he may tell me, "Look, I'll cheat person X, but I'd never
cheat you. You're my friend." But there's no assurance that I might not
later join the set of non-friends), I would avoid dealing with a person who
is willing to toss out his personal code of ethics whenever it appears to
him to be practical. Likewise, I would avoid becoming associated with any
organization that tolerated this viewpoint. I believe that Robert is on the
Board of Directors of the Extropy Institute. Therefore, what he says in
public (especially on a mailing list supported by the Institute) can be
attributed to that organization. I would suggest that if the other board
members do not hold this view, they make public statements that Robert's
views do not reflect the position of the Extropy Institute.
Barbara
Law Offices of Barbara Lamar
127 Lewis Street
San Antonio, TX 78212
210.223.9389 (San Antonio)
512.376.4235 (Austin / San Marcos)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 25 2003 - 09:56:16 MDT