X-Message-Number: 22819
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 07:15:40 -0700
From: David Brandt-Erichsen <>
Subject: Re: [Pizer] Need your opinion
References: <>

At 03:00 AM 11/9/2003, Dave Pizer wrote:
>Message #22800
>From: "David Pizer" <>
>Subject: Need your opinion.
>Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 23:21:49 -0800
>Can anyone tell me what is wrong (if anything) with the argument below?
>1.  All moral value emanates from living beings. Without life there is no 
>2.  So, to have any morality, we must first have life. Life is a necessary 
>condition for morality to exist.
>3.  Since it is moral to seek morality, it is moral to seek the underlying 
>necessary condition for morality - life.
>4.  If life can have any morality, long life can have more morality than 
>short life (all other things being equal), and eternal life can have more 
>morality than limited life. The most amount of morality possible, (in 
>principle), is infinite morality. For a creature to obtain infinite 
>morality, he/she must first have infinite life. Physical immortality is a 
>necessary condition for infinite life.
>5.. If it is most moral to strive for the most life - physical 
>immortality, then it is immoral not to.

Point 5 does not follow.  It incorrectly defines "less moral" as "immoral".

Best wishes,


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22819