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
-- Robert Lockard