[extropy-chat] Moral relativism

Giu1i0 Pri5c0 pgptag at gmail.com
Sun May 8 07:44:44 UTC 2005

If Sue were contemplating murdering some adult, the situation changes
completely because now there is another person whose interest must be
taken into account. So barring exceptional circumstances (e.g. the
adult is pointing a gun at Sue and threatening to shoot), I would say
Sue should not do as she wants in this specific case. If she does it
anyway, well this is what we have police and laws for.
The difference is that the unborn baby is not a person, and the adult
is. In the first case, no harm is done to a person, and in the second
it is.

On 5/7/05, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:

> Giulio:
> Very simple answer:
> Sue should have the baby if she wants to have the baby, she should not
> have the baby if she doesn't want to have the baby.
> And this is precisely the advice Frank should give her. He should
> also, of course, offer to help her evaluate different options in view
> of his greater experience of things.
> Well, I don't really care whether this answer reveals a moral
> relativist or objectivist stance.
> ----------------------------------------
> Giulio, do you think *all* moral issues are equally relative, or was
> this an exceptionally easy case?
> What if Sue were contemplating murdering some adult, perhaps based on
> simple jealousy.  Would you still say that the answer is simply that Sue
> should do as she wants?  If not, then can you help us understand what
> basis of reasoning applies?
> - Jef

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list