--- Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> wrote:
>
> Okay, I'm getting it: the fundamental axiom is that
> suffering is bad.
> Why is it bad? It just is, according to Luke's
> "common intuition". I
> agree that you and Singer make sense if we accept
> that axiom; I see no
> compelling reason to accept it, and no meaningful
> argument is given
> other than "of course suffering is bad!"
I am going to use height as my arbitrary criterion of a worthy life. Suffering is only important if it happens to people over the height of three feet. I think you're being deliberately obtuse, Miles. Surely you can see that your arguments, such as they are, could be applied to defending slavery. Why not have slaves? Sure, they suffer, but so what?
>
> Leave that aside, consider this scenario:
> experiments on a few primates
> are crucial to the development of a medical
> intervention that will save
> the life of millions of ill people. By the
> principle of reducing
> suffering, wouldn't you and Singer be logically
> compelled to support the
> primate research?
>
>
Leave that aside, consider this scenario: experiments on a few short "people" are crucial to the development of a medical intervention that will save the life of millions of ill heighted people. By the principle of reducing suffering, wouldn't you and Singer be logically compelled to support the midget research?
Nu, zayats, pogodi!
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com