---

Consistency in the application of one's moral principles is apparently difficult to achieve on the part of some moralizers. Consider the following -- Joseph Fletcher, a Protestant spokesman for voluntary euthanasia wrote: "A commission of American Prostestants recently concluded that the mass extermination of civilians by atom bomb blasts can be 'just,' although many members of the commission would hesitate to agree that fatal suffering could be ended righteously for one of the victims burned and charred externally and internally, not even as a response to the victim's pleas." Thoughts -- The mass extermination by atomic bomb is "just," but ending the life of one of these survivors, who is horribly burned, internal and external, is "unjust." IF he had died in the blast then that would have been a moral act, BUT IF he survived as a charred body and pleaded to have his suffering ended by taking his life -- THAT would be an immoral act. Ending the suffering caused by the moral atom bomb is immoral. If any readers can discover any redeeming aspect to this reasoning, please reply. -- Robert Lockard

---

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank