Population Ethics and The Intuition of Neutrality

Post Reply
Site Admin
Posts: 202
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:38 pm

Population Ethics and The Intuition of Neutrality

Post by solutions »


---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Population Ethics and The Intuition of Neutrality
From: Solutions
Date: Tue, September 20, 2022 1:54 pm PDT
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com

Dear John,

Our author, William MacAskill, becomes rather pedantic in pretending that only Oxford U graduate students can understand “Population Ethics” in general and “The Intuition of Neutrality” in particular.

On p. 171, he quotes another philosopher as explaining “The Intuition of Neutrality” as “We favor making people happy, but neutral (sic – s.b. preceded by “are”) about making happy people.”

Could you please provide examples of each from our past studies?

Your friend,


---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Re: Population Ethics and The Intuition of Neutrality
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Tue, September 20, 2022 3:37 pm MDT
To: Solutions

Dear Solutions,

Thank you very much for your e-mail.

About “making happy people” (or not), I would recommend reading “John Karls’ Super-Religious Mother’s Approval of Abortion” posted 11/17/2013 at viewtopic.php?f=345&t=1177&p=1560&hilit ... 7786#p1560.

My mother’s point was that she had seen in her work with, inter alia, unwed teenage mothers so many unwanted children who were forced to endure a life of so much pain and suffering that she firmly believed that abortion was far preferable from both a moral viewpoint and from the viewpoint of Christ’s TWO Commandments for “Inheriting Eternal Life” (“Love the Lord Thy God With All Thy Heart and With All Thy Soul and With All Thy Strength and With All Thy Mind AND LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF” whereupon immediately follows the parable of the Good Samaritan to illustrate the universal meaning of “Thy Neighbor” to include EVERYONE).”

In other word, “making happy people” (or not) meant, for her, aborting unwanted UNHAPPY children who would otherwise be forced to endure a life of indescribable pain and suffering.

About “making people happy,” I’m a bit surprised that you had to ask.

Sections 4 and 5 of www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org are entitled “Inner-City Holocaust and America's Apartheid ‘Justice’ System (In Honor of Jonathan Kozol and In Memory of John Howard Griffin)” which contain zillions of court decisions, legal briefs and other documents which tell the said tale of how 10 million inner-city children could have been saved from “a fate worse than death” if ANY of 21 governmental officials starting with President Obama had been willing to “lift a single finger” by causing an amicus curiae brief to be filed which, for each of them, was normally a routine matter.

Or if ANY of 43 news-media superstars starting with the late Gwen Ifill (co-anchor and co-editor of The PBS Newshour, and sole moderator and managing editor of PBS’ Washington Week), had been willing to “lift a single finger” to shine a single ray of light on what was going down in the litigation to save the 10 million inner-city children.

The “Question Presented For Review” in our final Petition for Certiorari (a request to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal) was –

“Can state court judges order their decisions which they know are diametrically-opposed to well-settled law, not to be published or cited (a strategy labeled ‘the segregated toilet’ in correspondence with 51 inner-city clergy who represent the 10 million inner-city children who have been disclosed from the outset as the ‘real parties at interest’ in this law suit) in order to flush away the rights of the 10 million inner-city children without disturbing the rights of first-class American citizens -- without violating the ‘Equal Protection of the Law’ requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?”

Our 10/5/2011 final report to each of the 51 inner-city clergy from San Francisco, Los Angeles and Oakland who had been supporting the cause (A) informed them that the US Supreme Court on 10/4/2011 refused to hear our appeal, (B) thanked them for their efforts with the solace that each of us would be able to say at The Pearly Gates with St. Paul (II Timothy 4:7): “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith” and (C) requested them and their congregants to pray for the 43 news-media superstars, the 21 governmental officials, the California judges and the U.S. Supreme Court Justices, that MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON THEIR SOULS!!!

The foregoing is why I have said on many occasions (including on our website) that an appropriate epitaph for Barack Obama (though long may he live) would be –

Barack Hussein Obama
American’s First “Token” Black President
He “Knew His Place” on The Establishment’s "Plantation"
He Condemned 10 MILLION Inner-City Children to “A Fate Worse Than Death”

I’m surprised that our author William MacAskill wanted “to make a dog’s dinner” out of two such simple concepts.

Particularly since both concepts could have been illustrated by many examples from our past studies.

The Obama example immediately leapt to mind because I was so disappointed in his behavior. After all, as a “community organizer” on the South Side of Chicago before becoming a politician, he had to be intimately familiar with the “I Have A Dream”® Programs featuring tutoring and mentoring from third-grade through high-school graduation with a guarantee of college tuition WHICH ROUTINELY transforming SINGLE-DIGIT high-school-graduation rates TO MORE THAN 90% -- since there were a dozen such IHAD programs in the “community” he was “organizing.”

So why did he oppose PRIVATE FINANCING for taking such programs to scale???

Enough already before I have a heart attack!!!

Your friend,

John K.

Post Reply

Return to “Discussion Outline – What We Owe The Future by Oxford U. Prof. William MacAskill – Sept 21”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest