X-Message-Number: 24396
From: 
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:59:47 EDT
Subject: Liberty and death

William O'Rights writes in part:
 
>The Constitution is the supreme law of the land
 
He also says I implied that he is less than a supporter of cryonics  (because 
he supports the principle of "liberty" or  "autonomy"), while--without making 
any dogmatic statements--I suggested  that it wasn't so simple, and that the 
life of the patient might be more  important than the principle of free choice 
for the patient. He has said he will  make a full reply in time, but 
meanwhile a brief thought or two:
 
1. In practice, the Constitution is not always the supreme law of the land.  
Sometimes judges reinvent it, and sometimes it was deliberately vague or  
ambiguous in the first place (as in the right to bear arms).
 
2. Of  "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," the first and  

condition precedent is life. With life you always have at least a degree of  
liberty; 
without life you have no liberty whatsoever, no choices at all. Slavery  might 
be worse than death (although very few slaves ever thought so, anywhere,  any 
time), but in modern circumstances it is hard to think of any particular  
liberty that is worth dying for.
 
3. Should every "competent" adult be "autonomous"? Legal "competence" just  
means that you can tie your own shoelaces and come in out of the rain--you 
could  still be pretty ignorant and stupid. Again, there are no simple answers.
 
4. We must keep clear the distinction between individual values and  
community values or ethics. They don't always coincide. 
 
Robert Ettinger
 
 


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=24396