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 >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=22819