Last Thoughts on John's blog, Schiavo...

As per my discussion with John regarding the Terri Schiavo case, I am in agreement with John that I think the debate has run its course.

Fundamentally, he and I use different criteria for determining our "moral codes." To this end, we will never reach agreement. John's views under a Utilitarian mindset are here.

I think John has explicated his ideas pretty well, but I again revert to my original argumentation regarding that mode of thinking. Despite his distinctions and agreement that he must rely on some level of principles, I have major misgivings about utilitarianism as an encompassing or determinitive societal force.

At its heart, it seems to me that we can perhaps boil down our disagreement to this (of course, John may correct me if he wishes):

John believes that killing Schiavo will result in a greater number of beneficial results (or "maximizing good"), and as such is permissible, if not necessary.

For me, on the other hand, the sanctity of life is unassailable under all circumstances. I believe that the protection of life trumps all considerations, even if doing so results in a net negative result on the community at large.

There is an old ethical mind-bender that illustrates the differential. It goes generally as follows:

There are two rival villages, Alpha and Omega.

Village Alpha is poised to attack Village Omega. Because of it's overwhelming strength, there is no chance that Omega can defeat Alpha in battle.

Village Alpha gives Omega an option, however: If Omega turns over one member of their community to be executed (solely because they are an Omegan), Alpha will spare the entire rest of Omega. If they do not turn over one member, the entire Omega village will be slaughtered.

You are the leader of Omega. Do you allow the murder of an entirely innocent person for the benefit of your entire village?

I'll leave you to wonder which choice you would make...