| | Rick asks, perhaps rhetorically: "why should we partake of life?"
Undoubtedly, this questions hangs on an answer to the more fundamental question bandied about -- about a "pre-moral" choice to live. My insights (immediately) thrust upon me a retort to the question: Can it be moral -- coming out of the gates, so to speak -- to choose NOT to experience? Answer: Not if life is growth.
If life is growth (as I proclaim), then the choice to live is not pre-moral -- as so many have (uncritically?) granted. If life is growth, then folks ought not choose otherwise, at least not from the outset (ie. without experiences of what is). It appears then that -- without contrary supporting evidence -- choosing to live IS moral (ie. choosing growth is choosing above the "zero" -- of which Rand spoke so negatively).
Euthenasia is not, thereby, prohibited -- as a personal, rational stock-taking is presumed to precede such a decision. But a decision from ignorance -- an "a priori" decision not to live -- is immoral. Choices ought not be made from ignorance of what it is that is possible to beings of unprecedented potentiality. Deciding to end your life is not something justifiable by whim, but by reason.
Abortion is not, thereby, prohibited -- as a personal, rational stock-taking is presumed to precede such a decision. Life trumps any mere potentiality. Actual life is what provides both meaning and value. If there were no actual life -- there would be no actual value.
I may be out on a limb here, but the branch appears strong.
Ed
|
|