X-Message-Number: 22826
From: "David Pizer" <>

References: <> 
<>
Subject: Re: [Pizer] Need your opinion
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:40:33 -0800

Thanks David

David

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Brandt-Erichsen" <>
To: <>
Cc: "David Pizer" <>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 6:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Pizer] Need your opinion


> 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
> >morality.
> >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,
>
> David
>

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22826