Shay wrote:
> But that's still not precisely what we're arguing about. The precise 
> thing we're arguing about is how to decide /when/ the rights of he many 
> should outweigh the rights of the few. You believe the majority should 
> decide when the majority's rights should impede upon the minority's. 
> That's where I can't see your logic. I believe with the system you 
> propose, two people will too often (always?) elect to eat the third.

Why can't we just say that, in some instances, the rights of the many 
outweigh the rights of the few, and in others the rights of the 
individual are paramount?

I'm not arguing for an ideal here, I'm looking at what should be done in 
this specific instance.

I know moral ambiguity isn't very popular in the media (it doesn't sell 
T-Shirts, for one thing) but it's rather practical and, more often than 
not, a situational ethic seems to provide the best solution.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message