 |
|
 |
|
 |
||||||
 |
||||||
Using a suitably fantastic example, do you suppose it is right for a vampire to sustain itself by stealing human blood? It would seem to me that a vampire qualifies as human far better than a fetus, especially if the only difference between these vampires and normal people was diet. If the vampire only took enough blood to leave a person weakened (and more vulnerable to illness) but not dead, then would it be moral for it to do so? What if the vampire lived by eating human kidneys? We have two of them, and it would only take one from each person. Although there is a high demand for kidneys to be transplanted, the resources we use on them may just as morally be used on a vampire who requires and procures a kidney each day (We cannot prioritize human life, can we?). What if you knew such vampires especially liked to hang out in Discoteques, but went to one anyway, though you carried garlic to keep them away. If, despite the carried garlic (perhaps it was not strong enough, as Eastern Europeans frequently complain about American garlic) the vampire corners you and begins removing your kidney, do you have a right to deny it its sustenance? —G G, you've got a startling scenario there. I don't think it's fair, but I think it's a lot of fun. -JoT Other responses to "Courts and Majorities" top |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|