RoR: Forum

Jon writes,

But let’s go back a bit and ask Bill to address his earlier statements, which arose from Rick’s questioning. What if the pharmacist turns out to be in the store and needs the medicine for HIS wife? Bill’s response: “If the choice is between your wife's survival and the survival of the pharmacists wife, you choose your wife's survival.” He would kill the pharmacist and steal the medicine, (which kill’s the pharmacist’s wife.) Two dead innocents. Rand’s “The murderer is Man A” doesn’t apply here. No, the murderer is man B, (B for Bill.)

As I said in a previous reply to Glenn, I wouldn't kill the pharmacist. That would be stupid, for all the reasons I mentioned. And I'm not sure I would steal the medicine if I knew that doing so would kill the pharmacist's wife. In that case, I could be charged with murder. The assumption in Rand's example, is that there's no reason to believe that would happen and that the most I would be charged with is robbery under mitigating circumstances.

But even so, I see nothing wrong with killing another human being in order to save my own life. You'll have to explain to me why you consider this to be immoral. If my own happiness is my highest moral purpose, and preserving my life serves that purpose, then I ought to do whatever is necessary to achieve it. How could choosing an action which I know will result in my own death serve that purpose? Clearly, it could not.

In answer to Teresa's point that this is pragmatism, in which the end justifies the means, there is a very legitimate sense in which the end does justify the means. Quoting Rand once again, "An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means -- and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil." ("The Objectivist Ethics," in The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 16.)

The maxim that "the end does not justify the means" refers to a situation in which the end can be achieved either by a moral, or by an immoral, means, and states that the end does not justify the immoral means. For example, if my end is to acquire money, the moral means is to earn it; the immoral means, to steal it. The maxim that the end does not justify the means says that the end -- the acquisition of money -- does not justify the (immoral) means of stealing it. But the premise that robbery is an immoral means of acquiring money must already be justified by reference to an ultimate end or value. It must already be proved by the fact that it is not the best means for promoting one's own survival in a social context -- that that value is best promoted by production and trade.

However, when in rare circumstances, such as life-threatening emergencies, survival by production and trade is no longer possible, then force as a means of sustaining one's life is justified.

Jon also writes,

I gave a hypothetical of people going up Everest with no preparation. He held fast: when the emergency emerges, they may kill whomever to survive. No consideration for the reality that heading up Everest with no preparation is itself an initiation of force against the others up there, given the foreseeable results. No interest in any of that—just: Hey, when the shit hits the fan, what’s your top value, man? Jeff was onto something when he raised Bill’s value-determinism.

First of all, value-determinism has nothing to do with this. Secondly, heading up Everest with insufficient preparation does not by itself constitute the initiation of force against the other climbers, although I will say that the climber's lack of preparation is irresponsible and immoral. But given his lack of preparation, on what grounds can it then be said that it is in his interest to should choose suicide rather than initiate force against the other climbers in order to save his own life? What argument can be made for that? None that I can see.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 5/22, 11:48pm)

Post 141

Friday, May 23, 2008 - 7:27am

Bill,
I agree with Jon. You've reduced every situation in which a person's greatest value is at risk to an emergency situation and then applied Rand's analysis of emergency situations to them. You seem to be saying that any time a person's life is in danger, no matter what led up to the event, then that constitutes an emergency and the person can violate anyone's rights, including taking their lives, in order to save his own.

That may be what an egoist would do, but I don't think it's what a rational egoist would do.

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 142

Friday, May 23, 2008 - 7:36am

“Secondly, heading up Everest with insufficient preparation does not by itself constitute the initiation of force against the other climbers, although I will say that the climber's lack of preparation is irresponsible and immoral.”

It wouldn’t be initiation of force if we were talking about JEFF heading up Everest without preparation, because he wouldn’t start killing people when his “emergency” emerged. It IS if we are talking about YOU. It is not merely irresponsible, it is the kicking off of the consequent murders. The consequences are perfectly foreseeable.

“But given his lack of preparation, on what grounds can it then be said that it is in his interest to should choose suicide rather than initiate force against the other climbers in order to save his own life? What argument can be made for that? None that I can see.”

Right, let’s put the act that set his murderous actions into motion behind us and analyze in isolation his situation as it exists halfway up the hill. No! It’s all one act.

Would you analyze in isolation a man’s decision to shoot a woman who threatened him with a gun—forgive him killing her, because he had to do it to preserve his life—when he was there in the first place by breaking into her house to rape her?

Post 143

Friday, May 23, 2008 - 10:24am

It is telling that the word "suicide" is used so prevalently in these hypothetical situations to describe one's own death when they are faced with the alternative that involves killing another innocent person. This is not how I view these situations. When I consider my alternatives, I would describe them as a choice between "dying with dignity" or "living with shame". The shame would result from the constant reminder that I had sacrificed another's life in place of mine - and no, I don't think the word 'sacrifice' is being used inappropriately in this sense. Suicide implies that one has chosen death over life, while "dying with dignity" recognizes that death may be inevitable, but it can be approached with honor rather than cowardice. So, even the choice of words used to describe these scenarios is very telling about a person's values.

I think the concept of a value "hierarchy' may also be playing a significant roll in how this issue is being analyzed. A "hierarchy" implies an order list of values where any two can be compared and ranked, with life itself at the top of the list trumping any other value. Although I have often used this term myself, I have come to realize that I actually don't have a value hierarchy, but instead I have a "value matrix". There is a complex interconnectedness that exists between my values such that I can isolate one of them for the purpose of theoretical discussion or intellectual review, but I can only practice them in their interrelatedness. Therefore, in practical terms, I really cannot speak of "life" being my highest value in the way Bill does. My life is only of value to me when it is considered in relation to all of my other values. Therefore, a breach in other values has an impact on how I also value life itself. For me, if I were to compromise my values to a great enough degree, then like Gail Wynand, I would no longer be able to value my life itself and would seek death by suicide. That is not something I wish to do so I try to practice integrity across the board in my values. In these so-called emergency situations, I make a different choice how to act than does Bill, precisely because I do NOT wish to commit suicide. I may die anyway at the hands of another or at the whim of fate, but I will die on my own terms.

Regards,
--
Jeff

(Edited by C. Jeffery Small on 5/23, 11:28am)

Post 144

Friday, May 23, 2008 - 10:49am

Glenn wrote,

I agree with Jon. You've reduced every situation in which a person's greatest value is at risk to an emergency situation and then applied Rand's analysis of emergency situations to them.

Damn, and I thought I'd won you over, Glenn! What a short-lived victory THAT turned out to be! :-/

You seem to be saying that any time a person's life is in danger, no matter what led up to the event, then that constitutes an emergency and the person can violate anyone's rights, including taking their lives, in order to save his own.

Well, he's not violating their rights, because they wouldn't have a right against his coercing them, if he were morally justified in doing it. If they did, then he wouldn't be morally justified. Remember, if you have a right against my action, then I ought not to take the action. Therefore, if I ought to take the action, then you can have no right against my taking it. [(P-->Q)-->(~P-->~Q)]

That may be what an egoist would do, but I don't think it's what a rational egoist would do.

Why not?? If he values his life, then it's rational for him to preserve it!

I wrote, “Secondly, heading up Everest with insufficient preparation does not by itself constitute the initiation of force against the other climbers, although I will say that the climber's lack of preparation is irresponsible and immoral.”

It wouldn’t be initiation of force if we were talking about JEFF heading up Everest without preparation, because he wouldn’t start killing people when his “emergency” emerged. It IS if we are talking about YOU. It is not merely irresponsible, it is the kicking off of the consequent murders. The consequences are perfectly foreseeable.

Okay. I think I see your argument. My embarking on the climb without adequate preparation is similar to a terrorist who is making a bomb in his basement, which he plans to detonate the day after tomorrow. He has already embarked on the action, and so he has already initiated force. And because I represent a potential, life-threatening danger to the other climbers, you would be justified in preventing me from accompanying them on the climb.

But I still don't think you can say that if I were permitted to go on the climb and an emergency were to arise that it would be in my interest to commit suicide rather than sacrifice the other climbers. As I said, “given his lack of preparation, on what grounds can it then be said that it is in his interest to choose suicide rather than initiate force against the other climbers in order to save his own life? What argument can be made for that? None that I can see.”

You replied,

Right, let’s put the act that set his murderous actions into motion behind us and analyze in isolation his situation as it exists halfway up the hill. No! It’s all one act.

While there is a sense in which it is "all one act," the climber still faces the choice of whether or not to sacrifice the other climbers once the emergency arises, so the question remains: is it in his interest to do it in order to preserve his own life, or not?

Would you analyze in isolation a man’s decision to shoot a woman who threatened him with a gun—forgive him killing her, because he had to do it to preserve his life—when he was there in the first place by breaking into her house to rape her?

He shouldn't have broken into her house to start with, but once having done so, he has nothing to gain by letting her kill him, if he can prevent it by defending himself. Of course, if he does kill her in the act of defending himself, then he should be charged with murder and sentenced to life in prison, which is why he shouldn't have put himself in that position, to begin with. The same reasoning applies to the climber who embarks without adequate preparation.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 5/23, 10:54am)

(Edited by William Dwyer on 5/23, 1:38pm)

Post 145

Friday, May 23, 2008 - 11:19am

Bill said:

Damn, and I thought I'd won you over, Glenn! What a short-lived victory THAT turned out to be!

Bill: you are the THESIS, Jeff is the ANTITHESIS, and I'm trying to come up with a SYNTHESIS. : )

Post 146

Friday, May 23, 2008 - 1:08pm

Like the mythical phoenix, Jeff has arisen from the ashes to argue yet another day! :-) Good to have you back. Jeff, I appreciate your input as well as your courage and honesty in acknowledging that you misunderstood Rand's position on this issue. That's more than a lot of people would have done.

You write,

It is telling that the word "suicide" is used so prevalently in these hypothetical situations to describe one's own death when they are faced with the alternative that involves killing another innocent person. This is not how I view these situations. When I consider my alternatives, I would describe them as a choice between "dying with dignity" or "living with shame". The shame would result from the constant reminder that I had sacrificed another's life in place of mine . . .

But aren't you begging the question? If you were to recognize that there is nothing immoral in sacrificing another's life to spare one's own, then there is no reason to feel shame and no reason to think that you would be living with shame.

. . . - and no, I don't think the word 'sacrifice' is being used inappropriately in this sense. Suicide implies that one has chosen death over life, while "dying with dignity" recognizes that death may be inevitable, but it can be approached with honor rather than cowardice.

Where is the cowardice?? Cowardice is the betrayal of one's values. If one truly values one's life and all that it has to offer, then it is an act of cowardice not to preserve it, even if the preservation requires that one sacrifice the life of another.

I think the concept of a value "hierarchy' may also be playing a significant roll in how this issue is being analyzed. A "hierarchy" implies an order list of values where any two can be compared and ranked, with life itself at the top of the list trumping any other value. Although I have often used this term myself, I have come to realize that I actually don't have a value hierarchy, but instead I have a "value matrix". There is a complex interconnectedness that exists between my values such that I can isolate one of them for the purpose of theoretical discussion or intellectual review, but I can only practice them in their interrelatedness. Therefore, in practical terms, I really cannot speak of "life" being my highest value in the way Bill does. My life is only of value to me when it is considered in relation to all of my other values. Therefore, a breach in other values has an impact on how I also value life itself. For me, if I were to compromise my values to a great enough degree, then like Gail Wynand, I would no longer be able to value my life itself and would seek death by suicide. That is not something I wish to do so I try to practice integrity across the board in my values. In these so-called emergency situations, I make a different choice how to act than does Bill, precisely because I do NOT wish to commit suicide. I may die anyway at the hands of another or at the whim of fate, but I will die on my own terms.

But you will be committing suicide by giving up your own life in order to avoid taking another person's life. That IS suicide, Jeff. That's what we're talking about here. So, I don't understand your argument.

- Bill

Post 147

Friday, May 23, 2008 - 2:18pm

“Jeff, I appreciate your input as well as your courage and honesty in acknowledging that you misunderstood Rand's position on this issue.”

Bill, you imagine that Rand—who said she would have jumped into the path of a bullet to prevent her husband being shot—would support your view that rapists, if they want to be moral, should kill their victim if the unthinkable happens and one of them turns out to be armed.

You really are a piece of work!

(Please don’t bother explaining her context for jumping into the path of the bullet; I’ve heard it. (She wouldn’t want to live without him, so there would be no value in her life without Frank.) Yeah, but she’d be all over the value of life as a rapist/murderer!)

Post 148

Friday, May 23, 2008 - 2:20pm

Bill writes:

> I don't understand your argument.

I understand that you don't. It is beyond my comprehension why you cannot understand it as it is so crystal clear to me. I'm sure you feel the same way with regards to me.

We are two very different people Bill. In many ways you and I are alike in the way we think analytically, and it seems, on the surface, that our respective intellects would allow us to close the gulf regarding our differences as we both search for what we believe is objective truth. But I do not any longer hold out hope that that is going to happen. I do think that the cause of our differences on this issue is the same thing that causes our differences on the subject of free will, which is why I raised that point a while ago.

You and I build our entire world-view upon completely different premises about the nature of our mind, its content and how that content is applied by our consciousness. This leads to radically different conclusions about how we interpret our actions as well as the world around us. For example, in the set of posts I have contributed to this topic, I have made what I consider to be a number of extremely insightful observations. I would estimate that you have ignored about 75% of them while drilling down repetitively on the other 25%. This is not any sort of accusation, it is just an observation that things which I believe are crucially important are skimmed over by you as unessential or possibly go unrecognized altogether. Of course, I'll wager that you would make the same observation about me. The point is that there is plenty of evidence to show that you and I are approaching this subject in such radically different ways that the great majority of our communications are not even actually being communicated. I don't have any suggestions for how to change this but I'm not interested in expending endless amounts of energy debating where there is little likelihood of achieving any meaningful result.

Regarding Rand's comments on this subject, I honestly don't know what to make of them as they seem to contradict the entire spirit of the remainder of her writings. I personally do not believe that she would have ever intended these comments to be used in service of the arguments you make. However, if what you are presenting here is a proper application of Objectivist ethics (which I am certainly not convinced is the case) then I would be ready to state without hesitation that I reject this formulation and that Rand was wrong on this count.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 149

Friday, May 23, 2008 - 5:36pm

I wrote, “Jeff, I appreciate your input as well as your courage and honesty in acknowledging that you misunderstood Rand's position on this issue.”

Jon replied,

Bill, you imagine that Rand—who said she would have jumped into the path of a bullet to prevent her husband being shot—would support your view that rapists, if they want to be moral, should kill their victim if the unthinkable happens and one of them turns out to be armed.

I'm not saying that she would support it. Your rapist example is different than the one that Jeff was addressing. I'm simply saying that the rapist has nothing to gain by allowing his victim to kill him. Do you think he does?

You really are a piece of work!

I'll let that comment stand for everyone to see,
Because it says more about you than it does about me.

(Please don’t bother explaining her context for jumping into the path of the bullet; I’ve heard it. (She wouldn’t want to live without him, so there would be no value in her life without Frank.) Yeah, but she’d be all over the value of life as a rapist/murderer!)

If you were aware that her context was different, then why did you make the argument, since it clearly doesn't apply to your example?!

- Bill

Post 150

Friday, May 23, 2008 - 8:09pm

Realize, gentlemen, that not only is such relativism intrinsicist and your vagueness undiluted, the mere axioms are tautologous, and such presumptions smack of post-hoc a priori anachronism. This while the rest are so self-aware that they don't even realize it!

This
is
not
an
argument.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 5/23, 9:41pm)

Post 151

Friday, May 23, 2008 - 8:24pm

Bill,

You seem to be saying that any time a person's life is in danger, no matter what led up to the event, then that constitutes an emergency and the person can violate anyone's rights, including taking their lives, in order to save his own.
Well, he's not violating their rights, because they wouldn't have a right against his coercing them, if he were morally justified in doing it. If they did, then he wouldn't be morally justified.

People don't gain or lose rights because of circumstances. Rights aren't "situational" (read: relative), they are absolute.

Would you analyze in isolation a man’s decision to shoot a woman who threatened him with a gun—forgive him killing her, because he had to do it to preserve his life—when he was there in the first place by breaking into her house to rape her?
He shouldn't have broken into her house to start with, but once having done so, he has nothing to gain by letting her kill him, if he can prevent it by defending himself.

In this case, the man is immoral when he breaks in, immoral when he attempts a rape, and immoral when he murders her. There is nothing moral about this man's action -- even if, by the fallacy of a floating abstraction, we re-designate his action as "self-defense."

Ed

Post 152

Friday, May 23, 2008 - 8:26pm

Bill,

I'm simply saying that the rapist has nothing to gain by allowing his victim to kill him. Do you think he does?

Yes, his integrity.

Ed

Post 153

Friday, May 23, 2008 - 8:36pm

Ted,

Are these comments directed at me? If they are, and you consider me worth addressing, would you mind making a counter-argument -- something I can at least respond to -- instead of a string of arbitrary assertions and inflammatory remarks?

Why do you and Jon think that these kinds of insults are appropriate or a proper substitute for rational argument -- unless you don't have a rational argument and can think of nothing else to say?

If this is the level to which you guys are willing to descend, then it is clear to me that our discussion has reached a dead end and is no longer worth continuing.

Sad.

- Bill

Post 154

Friday, May 23, 2008 - 9:25pm

I wrote, "Well, he's not violating their rights, because they wouldn't have a right against his coercing them, if he were morally justified in doing it. If they did, then he wouldn't be morally justified."

Ed replied,

People don't gain or lose rights because of circumstances. Rights aren't "situational" (read: relative), they are absolute.

Ed, I've already defended this point on several different occasions. If you disagree with me, make an argument against my argument, not another arbitrary assertion! Once more, and this is the last time I'm going to repeat the argument:

If I have a right against your coercing me, then you have an obligation to abstain from coercing me. (If P, then Q).

Therefore, if you have no obligation to abstain from coercing me (which you wouldn't, if during an emergency it's in your interest to coerce me), then I have no right against your coercing me. (If not-P, then not-Q).

What this argument demonstrates is that rights are contextually absolute (just as honesty is contextually absolute), not absolute in the sense that you're implying. If you want to call contextually absolute "situational" fine, but the concept is still a valid one.

I wrote, "He shouldn't have broken into her house to start with, but once having done so, he has nothing to gain by letting her kill him, if he can prevent it by defending himself." And: "I'm simply saying that the rapist has nothing to gain by allowing his victim to kill him. Do you think he does?"

Yes, his integrity.

Huh?! His INTEGRITY?? Ed, a dead man doesn't have integrity. Integrity is a virtue that applies only to the living. And even if he did have integrity, how could it possibly serve him in any way?! He's DEAD?!

Hello!

- Bill

Post 155

Friday, May 23, 2008 - 11:53pm

“Why do you and Jon think that these kinds of insults are appropriate or a proper substitute for rational argument -- unless you don't have a rational argument”

What insult? “You really are a piece of work”?

Your stating that I haven’t offered any rational argument—that’s an insult, and more.

Jeff observes that you ignore 75% of his points.

In the latest exchange with Ed, you ignored half of his post, which is unfortunate because it goes to the heart of your error.

Borrowing your phrase to Ed: Once more, and this is the last time I'm going to repeat the argument:

Emergencies may be caused by third parties, such as in the quote from Rand that you gave, where one is forced to kill an innocent or be killed themselves by the third party. Emergencies can be caused by nature, such as flood, fire, shipwreck, and similar examples she gave. But when a psychopath intentionally ruins another’s life, and that victim challenges him, then the worthless piece of shit is facing the consequences of his own disgusting course, he is not facing an “emergency.” Nothing she ever wrote justifies interpreting “emergency” that way.

Your use of the “If not-P, then not-Q” business is just so damn precious (close to an insult.) What it implies is that the victim’s right against being killed by the perp can be vaporized, not by a third party wielding a gun, not by an unfortunate act of nature, but by the vicious actions of the perp himself!

Jeeeeezus Christ, Bill! Pull your head out of your ass. (That’s an insult.)

Rand would have said that the moral thing for the rapist to do would be to recognize that his life is objectively an eyesore and place his balls into a meat-grinder.

Post 156

Saturday, May 24, 2008 - 8:28am

Bill,

=========

… if you have no obligation to abstain from coercing me (which you wouldn't, if during an emergency it's in your interest to coerce me), then I have no right against your coercing me. …

=========

In this argued context, there’s a criminal who you are saying the woman doesn’t have a right (to her life) against. Rand and I and others would disagree …

“There are two potential violators of man’s rights: the criminals and the government.” – VOS, 111

=========

What this argument demonstrates is that rights are contextually absolute (just as honesty is contextually absolute), not absolute in the sense that you're implying. If you want to call contextually absolute "situational" fine, but the concept is still a valid one.
=========

What you’re saying is that individual rights are for special (emergency- and error-free) contexts. Rand and I and others would disagree …

“There are no “rights” of special groups … . There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals.”—VOS, 114-5

[capitalizations and italics are Rand’s own]

=========
I wrote, "He shouldn't have broken into her house to start with, but once having done so, he has nothing to gain by letting her kill him, if he can prevent it by defending himself."

And: "I'm simply saying that the rapist has nothing to gain by allowing his victim to kill him. Do you think he does?"

Yes, his integrity.

=========

I didn’t say it would “serve” his interests – not in the limited and partial and amoral manner in which you are viewing the concept “serve.” The reason that you view this subject in this way is because of your ‘value-determinism’ – wherein it’s assumed that human action and choice are the mechanical result of most-felt desires.

By enshrining feelings in this way – and making some generic presumptions about an individual’s intellectual intentions and reflections – you are able to forward an argument for such an inversion of morality (where a victim doesn’t retain a right to her own life against a criminal). Here’s Rand on how acting on most-felt desire can be immoral …

“Integrity does not consist of loyalty to one’s subjective whims, but of loyalty to rational principles.”—VOS, 69

“The mere fact that a man desires something does not constitute a proof that the object of his desire is good, nor that its achievement is actually to his interest.

To claim that a man’s interests are sacrificed whenever a desire of his is frustrated—is to hold a subjectivist view of man’s values and interests. Which means: to believe that it is proper, moral and possible for man to achieve his goals, regardless of whether they contradict the facts of reality or not.”—VOS, 50

Post 157

Saturday, May 24, 2008 - 9:44am

(Why do I continue to humor these people?)

Jon wrote,

Emergencies may be caused by third parties, such as in the quote from Rand that you gave, where one is forced to kill an innocent or be killed themselves by the third party. Emergencies can be caused by nature, such as flood, fire, shipwreck, and similar examples she gave. But when a psychopath intentionally ruins another’s life, and that victim challenges him, then the worthless piece of shit is facing the consequences of his own disgusting course, he is not facing an “emergency.” Nothing she ever wrote justifies interpreting “emergency” that way.

Okay, don't call it an "emergency." Call it a situation in which the rapist is faced with the choice of allowing his victim to kill him or of preventing his victim from killing him. If I read you correctly, you're saying that he should allow his victim to kill him. My question is: How is that in his interest?

Your use of the “If not-P, then not-Q” business is just so damn precious (close to an insult.) What it implies is that the victim’s right against being killed by the perp can be vaporized, not by a third party wielding a gun, not by an unfortunate act of nature, but by the vicious actions of the perp himself!

Right. So? You're acting as if this constitutes a refutation of my argument. It doesn't.

Jeeeeezus Christ, Bill! Pull your head out of your ass. (That’s an insult.)

You're right, it is. It's certainly not an argument, which you seem incapable of making or of understanding.

Rand would have said that the moral thing for the rapist to do would be to recognize that his life is objectively an eyesore and place his balls into a meat-grinder.

I don't know what Rand would have said, but I doubt that she would have said that. In any case, this is not a valid argument but an appeal to authority. If you care to make an argument, I'm always open to considering it.

Have a nice day.

- Bill

Post 158

Saturday, May 24, 2008 - 10:07am

I really appreciate this exchange. It's interesting and frustrating at the same time. I have a question for Bill regarding his view here:

Okay, don't call it an "emergency." Call it a situation in which the rapist is faced with the choice of allowing his victim to kill him or of preventing his victim from killing him. If I read you correctly, you're saying that he should allow his victim to kill him. My question is: How is that in his interest?

I'm wondering, why are his interests open for consideration? Why do they matter? Are you thinking simply from the criminals moral point of view, or from the bigger picture point of view? Should the criminal's point of view even be considered within the bigger picture, which contains an objective justice? How can there be objective justice if a criminal's moral view should be considered? Thanks in advance.

Post 159

Saturday, May 24, 2008 - 10:34am