Comment: I don't think it would be people's value that kept them alive

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You nailed it Tam (see in situ)

tasmlab's picture

I don't think it would be people's value that kept them alive

I don't think it would be people's value that kept them alive, regardless if we did or didn't value the specific utility elderly and the children. Even before that discussion of "should I murder grandma because she's not worth much" there would still be the giant-sized rationale of ethics and morality.

The utility/value of children doesn't explain the willingness to abort - but then it is so clouded between our systemic poor and the stupid adoption laws. Everyone I've known to adopt a child has had to spend no less than $40,000 in fees.

I would think the murder rates of family members wouldn't go up because of the lack of law - I couldn't know of course.

At the moment you are about to drown your children in the bathtub because, you know, you were crazy abused as a child, took too many psych pills whilst huffing gasoline that night or whatever, you would stop to think about the consequences because of the law. Once the coo-coo has left the clock, we're outside the law anyways.

Scary stuff! But this is really what serious conversations of "what is the proper role of violence within a society" should be e.g., about protecting children, not paving roads or inspecting vegetables or funding television programing about antiquing.

Currently consuming: Harry Browne, Free Domain Radio; JT Gatto and Holt; Wii U