Comment not true emotions are invalid (Score 0) 582
Regarding the last example in the article, there IS a big difference between pulling the feeding tube from the patient, and feeding him the killer drug. In the first situation we have a built-in guarantee the patient gets some benefit from dying, since he was not able to survive independently of medicine. The second situation opens up many more possibilities for murder. Applied broadly it would be more harmful society, thus the law is correct to view it differently.
This is a complex logic that probably wouldn't have occurred to the law makers, same way it failed the author of the article. But emotion guided the law makers correctly.
I could give a similar logical explanation to the "don't kill a baby" scenario. Again it would be too convoluted (however correct it might be) for fast decision making, again emotions would have guided correctly.
This is a complex logic that probably wouldn't have occurred to the law makers, same way it failed the author of the article. But emotion guided the law makers correctly.
I could give a similar logical explanation to the "don't kill a baby" scenario. Again it would be too convoluted (however correct it might be) for fast decision making, again emotions would have guided correctly.
