From: Michelle (michelle@barrymenasherealtors.com)
Date: Tue May 28 2002 - 16:20:50 MDT
That's quite an interesting response, quite appropriate to the recent
discussions. Did I get this link here? The Hedonistic Imperative:
http://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/tabconhi.htm
This is related and fascinating, though I've yet to make it through the
whole thing.
I think Richard calling me a puritan a while back has made me realize many
things about myself, and one of those things is that I'm mainly about
striving for that "higher purpose" and working toward a spiritual plain
higher than that on which we normally operate. I must say that the only
reasonable option seems to be to make all things permissible and cross your
fingers! Otherwise we must decide who's worthy of "dangerous"
substances/technology, because there's certainly no stopping scientific
advancement, and I suppose no reason to try. But the other side of the
article's implication is that if we allow neuro-tinkering, we ought to allow
gene-tinkering, no double standard!
If we say "yes, drugs are good and useful and a responsible human should
have every right to access them", then we must say the same about genetic
assistance, as well. Any objections here?
That's what I found most interesting about the article - the idea that
arguments must be applied evenly. Does that seem valid? Does anyone here
think one is more dangerous than the other?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:47 MDT