| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Beasts of Burden |
| 2004-12-09 |
| It could never happen here. Genocide, ethnic cleansing, slavery, segregation, these are moral failings of lesser cultures. While we in the West may have once indulged in such behavior, we've evolved beyond such things. We're too civilized, too enlightened by reason to ever again succumb. Or so we like to think. Maybe we should think again. From the Netherlands, once the epitome of civilized tolerance, comes the revelation that one of the country's top hospitals, with the blessing of the Dutch judicial authorities, has been conducting a sort of medico-legal experiment in neonatal euthanasia. And at one of the most prestigious universities in our own civilized States, the man considered by some the most influential living philosopher, teaches that those neonates are less deserving of our concern than animals. At first glance, a few Dutch mercy killings and the academic musings of philosopher seem far removed from the crimes against humanity that occur in less "enlightened" corners of the world. The intent of the Dutch, after all, is to eliminate suffering, not to cause it. And philosopher/ethicist Peter Singer doesn't advocate genocide, slavery, or segregation -- he simply believes that our moral compass should be guided by utilitarian principles, not religious ones. But on further inspection, there is a commonality between the Dutch, the Princeton professor, the Sudanese, the Serbs, and everyone who would subjugate others. That commonality is the subjective judgment that some lives are less worthy than others. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #5 I don't know who the speaker was and I can't remember what she said about his reaction. I just remember thinking that it was all very ironic. #4 - I understand the point, but I think it's a false dilemma. And although a "true" utilitarian would describe it as you said, in practice it always seems to work out more as the "some lives are less worthy than others." |
| Posted by: Kathy L 2004-12-09 3:15:46 PM |
| #4 subjective judgment that some lives are less worthy than others This is the oldest debating trick in the book. Accuse your opponent of the most obvious flaw in your own argument. A Utilitarian would argue that there are always choices to be made and we should rationally choose the alternative that does the most people, the most good. A utilitarian given the choice between expending resources to save one child with a terminable disease and expending the same resources to feed a child in the Sudan, would choose the latter. In practice you could feed hundreds of Sudanese children for the cost of treating one terminally ill baby in the West. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-12-09 2:24:35 PM |
| #3 Who was the speaker? |
| Posted by: lex 2004-12-09 1:50:41 PM |
| #2 What was the speaker's reaction? |
| Posted by: Spemble Whaimp3886 2004-12-09 1:41:43 PM |
| #1 My sister's med school class was at an ethics lecture with a visiting speaker. He was going on about how spina bifida babies should not be saved. Only at the end did one of my sister's classmates inform him that she (the classmate) had spina bifida, a fact which the rest of the class knew. Guess she wasn't worth the effort of saving, though. People forget that Nazism started with just this type of euthenasia of "defective" babies. It never stops there. It's just that the choice of whom to whack next varies according to cultural preferences. |
| Posted by: Kathy L 2004-12-09 6:09:26 AM |