This week, I read where Peter Singer (famed Bio-ethicist and Princeton University professor) gave an interview with Nina Streeck in a Swiss Newspaper.
I've made no secret of my contempt for his "ethics" in the past, when his own university page states the following:
“Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents."
He's also advocated granting personhood to some apes/chimpanzees, dolphins, and artificial intelligence (machines), while denying that same label to children like my son Paul, or like my father after Alzheimer's claimed his capacity to express his intellect.
But today, he revealed his consistency of mind, that utilitarianism brought to its logical conclusion must reach.
Q: If you were standing in front of a burning house, where 200 pigs and a child, and you could save either the animals or the child, what would you do?
Singer: The suffering of animals at some point so great that you should decide to free the animals and not the child. Whether this point is reached at 200 or two million animals, I do not know. But one must not be burned countless animals in order to save a child’s life.
I have to ask, (it was no where in the article), what constitutes countless? How many pork bellies is a child's life worth? Or when does a child outweigh a pork belly in Professor Singer's calculations?
The questions in my mind snowballed.
If a child might not be worth the cost of 200 little piggies, then would Singer advocate rescuing the babe if there were only 100 that'll do pigs trapped in the barn?
What if the burning barn held fifty prize winning some kind of pigs? Would the child be worth saving then?
Or ten?
What if the child had Down Syndrome, or was very young (newborn) or had any other disability and thus wasn't healthy like the pigs?
My main beef with Professor Singer is his firm holding that some animals are more equal than others, that four legs good, two legs better, and the praise the world heaps on him for being so nuanced in his understanding of "ethics."
Sooner or later, all of us will be weighed against whatever the going rate is for preventing the world from enjoying pulled pork, and when we don't measure up as a silk purse, we will be (by this sort of economic utilitarian thinking), worth less than a sow's ear.
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Reason 2,547,383 of Why We Should Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet
When I read about the article in the British Medical Journal, "After-birth Abortion: why should the baby live?" before going mentally nuclear on the very thought which frankly was my first emotional response, I forced myself to start reading the damn thing. From the title alone, I admit, I was wanting God's thunder to shake down from the sky...big time.
I admit, it's personal. I could not casually read about how Down Syndrome children while happy and thus could be argued to not be suffering because of their condition, were a prime example of when post birth abortion ought to be allowed.
From the article: "...to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible."
So we're not leaving them out nailed to a tree for the wolves to eat. It's still a "We are Sparta!" moment. The family was threatened the instant this thought was given voice.
I don't fault these people for their "logical" continuation of the thought. If it is permissible to kill an infant in utero because of a disability or for any reason whatsoever and personhood is only conveyed by the will of the individual choosing to be inconvenienced and the alternative sanctioned by the state, then geography ought not make a difference. After all, it's about choice. The state can set a "reasonable" window for this choice after the fact. This is the argument that Peter Singer, ethicist at Princeton has made as well.
I fault them for deciding that humanity is conveyed with consciousness and intellect. My apologies if you've just eaten. This is what passes for philosophical thoughtfulness in the field of medical ethics.
"This consideration entails a much stronger idea than the one according to which severely handicapped children should be euthanized. If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet."
So sign them up for Harvard at birth so they have aims. Forget Tiger Moms, much too tame, you need Raptors. Anything less than an Olympic gold medalist? Not all A's? Eagle Scout? Heavens, why does the state or for that matter you, suffer such fools? It was hard not to go into a purely acid rant at this point but I want to contain my ire...a bit. It's not easy.
The value of a person is not the same as the value to the state, or shouldn't be. The value of a person is not economic. Just as love is not purely chemical, societal problems are not purely individual, education is not merely books and all of life cannot be explained through science, humanity defined in any of these more limiting terms results in an eventual shrinking of who is considered allowable.
My brain went to the next question. Hey doc? What's the cutoff? Is there one? Or is all of this nice clinical thinking about killing people who don't meet your definition of personhood a relative value? Is Personhood owned or is the status one that is permanently in flux, such that if one falls into a coma, becomes depressed, diseased, disabled, addicted or broke, that personhood is revoked since aims can no longer be formed or met?
Answer as I continued reading: "First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold..." (Emphasis mine). Points to Peter Singer for at least being man enough to say the age of two, not that it's much comfort.
Consistency. There was perfect consistency in their philosophical framework. It is a tyranny of logic, born of having abandoned the premise that human life intrinsically has value.
Naturally, there was outrage and the medical journal has posted an article with some of the more vitriolic and inept responses to illustrate that any criticism of the proposal in the article shows a desire to quell debate, reject science and threatens free speech. So I'm here saying, you wrote what you wanted. You published it. Your speech was not squashed.
I will now tell you what I think using my gift of free speech:
What you wrote is a prescription for a Hobbesian world. What you wrote is a recipe for death and abuse and cruelty. What you suggest is morally wrong and it is barbaric even if you use anesthesia. What you propose as compassion, is evil.
Further, you propose is that we call this evil compassion. Not only do you want us to accept this practice as reasonable, you want us to call it a good. Your magazine considers the possibility of people objecting more of a threat to society than the proposed philosophical musings about the morality of infanticide. If we've learned anything from history, it is this: evil always demands that we tolerate more evil. Evil eventually demands that we call it good and deny that it ever was evil. And evil always advances if good does not speak up and speak out and resist.
Society reflects our collective morality. It is natural law as it were, though some disavow the existence of such a thing. But no one wants to be treated violently even if they are violent themselves. No one wants to be cheated even if they are a cheat themselves. No one wants others to lie to them, even if they specialize in lying. We actually want others to treat us better than we do them. Justice for others, mercy for ourselves. The reality is we should be seeking mercy for others and asking for what is right and just for our own souls. Defense of the innocent, of the defenseless ought to be a given, even in the world of science and medical research.
Who in society benefits from teaching whole generations that everyone else is disposable and that all human worth is economic or aim oriented? I don't think truth or beauty or goodness is enhanced by promoting the idea that it is socially and even psychologically acceptable to destroy the innocent (or the guilty for that matter). A world peopled with differing abilities reveals a greater tolerance, imagination, compassion and beauty than a world peopled with only physical/mental perfect people who have no capacity to endure suffering real or imagined.
Put another way, how we respond to the sick, the disadvantaged, the handicapped, the innocent, the young and the old, how we respond to anyone who is other than us reveals more about our real society and how humane or civilized we are, than how few problems one can spot easily via a physical and mental profile. Following or supporting the sort of thinking promoted and presented in this British Medical Journal and defended by its editor, will make us less than humane and less than human.
God have mercy on us for divorcing reason and science from the heart and soul and thinking it truth.
For the sake of His sorrowful passion...
I admit, it's personal. I could not casually read about how Down Syndrome children while happy and thus could be argued to not be suffering because of their condition, were a prime example of when post birth abortion ought to be allowed.
From the article: "...to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible."
So we're not leaving them out nailed to a tree for the wolves to eat. It's still a "We are Sparta!" moment. The family was threatened the instant this thought was given voice.
I don't fault these people for their "logical" continuation of the thought. If it is permissible to kill an infant in utero because of a disability or for any reason whatsoever and personhood is only conveyed by the will of the individual choosing to be inconvenienced and the alternative sanctioned by the state, then geography ought not make a difference. After all, it's about choice. The state can set a "reasonable" window for this choice after the fact. This is the argument that Peter Singer, ethicist at Princeton has made as well.
I fault them for deciding that humanity is conveyed with consciousness and intellect. My apologies if you've just eaten. This is what passes for philosophical thoughtfulness in the field of medical ethics.
"This consideration entails a much stronger idea than the one according to which severely handicapped children should be euthanized. If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet."
So sign them up for Harvard at birth so they have aims. Forget Tiger Moms, much too tame, you need Raptors. Anything less than an Olympic gold medalist? Not all A's? Eagle Scout? Heavens, why does the state or for that matter you, suffer such fools? It was hard not to go into a purely acid rant at this point but I want to contain my ire...a bit. It's not easy.
The value of a person is not the same as the value to the state, or shouldn't be. The value of a person is not economic. Just as love is not purely chemical, societal problems are not purely individual, education is not merely books and all of life cannot be explained through science, humanity defined in any of these more limiting terms results in an eventual shrinking of who is considered allowable.
My brain went to the next question. Hey doc? What's the cutoff? Is there one? Or is all of this nice clinical thinking about killing people who don't meet your definition of personhood a relative value? Is Personhood owned or is the status one that is permanently in flux, such that if one falls into a coma, becomes depressed, diseased, disabled, addicted or broke, that personhood is revoked since aims can no longer be formed or met?
Answer as I continued reading: "First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold..." (Emphasis mine). Points to Peter Singer for at least being man enough to say the age of two, not that it's much comfort.
Consistency. There was perfect consistency in their philosophical framework. It is a tyranny of logic, born of having abandoned the premise that human life intrinsically has value.
Naturally, there was outrage and the medical journal has posted an article with some of the more vitriolic and inept responses to illustrate that any criticism of the proposal in the article shows a desire to quell debate, reject science and threatens free speech. So I'm here saying, you wrote what you wanted. You published it. Your speech was not squashed.
I will now tell you what I think using my gift of free speech:
What you wrote is a prescription for a Hobbesian world. What you wrote is a recipe for death and abuse and cruelty. What you suggest is morally wrong and it is barbaric even if you use anesthesia. What you propose as compassion, is evil.
Further, you propose is that we call this evil compassion. Not only do you want us to accept this practice as reasonable, you want us to call it a good. Your magazine considers the possibility of people objecting more of a threat to society than the proposed philosophical musings about the morality of infanticide. If we've learned anything from history, it is this: evil always demands that we tolerate more evil. Evil eventually demands that we call it good and deny that it ever was evil. And evil always advances if good does not speak up and speak out and resist.
Who in society benefits from teaching whole generations that everyone else is disposable and that all human worth is economic or aim oriented? I don't think truth or beauty or goodness is enhanced by promoting the idea that it is socially and even psychologically acceptable to destroy the innocent (or the guilty for that matter). A world peopled with differing abilities reveals a greater tolerance, imagination, compassion and beauty than a world peopled with only physical/mental perfect people who have no capacity to endure suffering real or imagined.
Put another way, how we respond to the sick, the disadvantaged, the handicapped, the innocent, the young and the old, how we respond to anyone who is other than us reveals more about our real society and how humane or civilized we are, than how few problems one can spot easily via a physical and mental profile. Following or supporting the sort of thinking promoted and presented in this British Medical Journal and defended by its editor, will make us less than humane and less than human.
God have mercy on us for divorcing reason and science from the heart and soul and thinking it truth.
For the sake of His sorrowful passion...
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Health Dare Reform
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/08/04/dying/index.html
First Joe Biden says it is patriotic to pay taxes. Now, apparently, it is patriotic to die early, or at least before one encumbers the general public by needing medical care beyond a red or blue pill.
The piece if you don't care to sully your computer with reading Salon, discusses how as Americans, we don't accept death, we fight it. Gosh, I never knew this was strictly a U.S.A. type sentiment, but let's just let that slide.
Anne Moore's piece explains that we could as a country, save millions if we would just allow death to occur like we did in the good old days. She fondly remembers all the fun wakes she attended and how healthy they were. In the good old days, those who loved the person or felt obligated, gathered to toast the person's life and reflect on his or her meaning in their lives. This still happens regardless of whether one used tubes and an ICU prior to passing or not, but it happened after death.
Now, we should gather, throw a huge blow out and kiss the relatives at the door of the hospital good bye forever. It sounds so soothing, so reasonable, to go into a cocoon room where everyone could hang out and take pictures and then die.
It would be selfless to die and more sensible, no pain, no mess, just hold a big party to kiss your loved ones good-bye and then off to that good night. The problem is, that's not what happened in her romantic childhood, nor is that what she's advocating here. She romantically attaches what people did after those they loved died, to what people should now do in the present pre-mortum.
I bet the government could encourage such behavior by waving the death taxes that normally come on one's estate upon demise when such heroic selfless action is done with full proper documentation and witnesses.
This is the same psuedo compassion that encourages abortion to be considered merely an unpleasant episode, rather than a grave evil act.
People don't know even when they receive a bad diagnosis about their health when they will die, and as such, all that they do up until that moment, amounts to part of who they are. Their sufferings and difficulties also reveal how well we love as a society.
We have the freedom to face death or not at this moment in our country as we will, with the tenacity and courage to hold on or with the equal quiet grace of endurance unto death. What we should not be in the business of doing as a nation or individuals, is asking people to "hurry it up" out of fear of suffering, nor should we be in the business of telling people who wish to go on, that such actions would be selfish because of cost.
If I were a boomer staring down the beginnings of old age, I'd feel very queasy about this mind set becoming the expected norm. Because I love people who have come before me, I find this way of thinking disturbing. There have been countless nations before this one that used the need to decrease the surplus population as an excuse to kill millions. The problems of a society of how to deal with elderly, the young, the handicapped and the poor have all been "solved" by death in the past. This is just the latest modern version of justification for killing.
So to those who offer this snake oil in the name of all that is good for the country, offering the simplicity of a red or blue pill rather than extended medical care, here are the red and blue pills. If you think it is so good for the country to die before medical care is needed, you go first.
First Joe Biden says it is patriotic to pay taxes. Now, apparently, it is patriotic to die early, or at least before one encumbers the general public by needing medical care beyond a red or blue pill.
The piece if you don't care to sully your computer with reading Salon, discusses how as Americans, we don't accept death, we fight it. Gosh, I never knew this was strictly a U.S.A. type sentiment, but let's just let that slide.
Anne Moore's piece explains that we could as a country, save millions if we would just allow death to occur like we did in the good old days. She fondly remembers all the fun wakes she attended and how healthy they were. In the good old days, those who loved the person or felt obligated, gathered to toast the person's life and reflect on his or her meaning in their lives. This still happens regardless of whether one used tubes and an ICU prior to passing or not, but it happened after death.
Now, we should gather, throw a huge blow out and kiss the relatives at the door of the hospital good bye forever. It sounds so soothing, so reasonable, to go into a cocoon room where everyone could hang out and take pictures and then die.
It would be selfless to die and more sensible, no pain, no mess, just hold a big party to kiss your loved ones good-bye and then off to that good night. The problem is, that's not what happened in her romantic childhood, nor is that what she's advocating here. She romantically attaches what people did after those they loved died, to what people should now do in the present pre-mortum.
I bet the government could encourage such behavior by waving the death taxes that normally come on one's estate upon demise when such heroic selfless action is done with full proper documentation and witnesses.
This is the same psuedo compassion that encourages abortion to be considered merely an unpleasant episode, rather than a grave evil act.
People don't know even when they receive a bad diagnosis about their health when they will die, and as such, all that they do up until that moment, amounts to part of who they are. Their sufferings and difficulties also reveal how well we love as a society.
We have the freedom to face death or not at this moment in our country as we will, with the tenacity and courage to hold on or with the equal quiet grace of endurance unto death. What we should not be in the business of doing as a nation or individuals, is asking people to "hurry it up" out of fear of suffering, nor should we be in the business of telling people who wish to go on, that such actions would be selfish because of cost.
If I were a boomer staring down the beginnings of old age, I'd feel very queasy about this mind set becoming the expected norm. Because I love people who have come before me, I find this way of thinking disturbing. There have been countless nations before this one that used the need to decrease the surplus population as an excuse to kill millions. The problems of a society of how to deal with elderly, the young, the handicapped and the poor have all been "solved" by death in the past. This is just the latest modern version of justification for killing.
So to those who offer this snake oil in the name of all that is good for the country, offering the simplicity of a red or blue pill rather than extended medical care, here are the red and blue pills. If you think it is so good for the country to die before medical care is needed, you go first.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Chocolate Spam
I have an ethical issue. I got an email. It wasn’t intended for me but I desperately want to take advantage of its exciting offer. Sure, it’s probably spam. Sure, I’m being silly but they hit me where I live.
Here is the letter.
Good Morning Julie! (I’m sure Julie is just a typo, after all, Sherry sounds similar…sorta)..
As you are a well-know blogger in the gourmet food world, we would be glad to keep you aware of events and news in the chocolate world! (I’m well known…Think…Rudoloph…She said I’m cute!)
You may have heard about us; Michel Cluizel is a family owned company based in Normandy and we offer only the finest in chocolate. (No, but she has my complete and undivided attention now). We are one of the few companies which are now referred to as cacaofeviers meaning we work from bean to bar.We work with our plantations to select only the finest beans and we use only natural ingredients. Pure cocoa butter, pure vanilla bean and cane sugar. We have no added vegetable fat or flavors and no soy lecithin.
(Okay, she had me at the new funky word cacaofevier).
All our chocolates, completely made in our workshops, meet the "Noble Ingredients" quality commitment that really provides our customers with an exceptional chocolate. (Patrician Chocolate, yes yes yes, I want some)…
We have a great variety of chocolates so if you would be interested in receiving some samples (Wait, someone is getting freebies of this stuff?) please contact us at your earliest convenience. (If she’s too busy to contact you, I volunteer at your earliest convenience).
As a chocolate lover and an amazing food writer, (Aw shucks!) you may also enjoy receiving some recipes as well as regular updates. (Sure!)
Thank you for taking the time to read this email. (No no, thank You.)
Please contact us if you would prefer to be removed from our mailing list.
Regards,
Customer Service Representative
Cluizelusa4@comcast.net
My response
Dear….
Thank you so much for your interest in introducing me to the fine confections offered by Michel Cluizel. As you are no doubt aware, Chocolate For Your Brain! is a blog by Sherry Antonetti, known for her restless desire to find the very best manifestation of heaven on earth as encapsulated in chocolate form. Please feel free to send samples for consideration in a future blog entry that will discuss the level of rapture achieved by consumption of exclusively “Noble Chocolate.”
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sherry
Oddly enough, I haven’t heard back.
Here is the letter.
Good Morning Julie! (I’m sure Julie is just a typo, after all, Sherry sounds similar…sorta)..
As you are a well-know blogger in the gourmet food world, we would be glad to keep you aware of events and news in the chocolate world! (I’m well known…Think…Rudoloph…She said I’m cute!)
You may have heard about us; Michel Cluizel is a family owned company based in Normandy and we offer only the finest in chocolate. (No, but she has my complete and undivided attention now). We are one of the few companies which are now referred to as cacaofeviers meaning we work from bean to bar.We work with our plantations to select only the finest beans and we use only natural ingredients. Pure cocoa butter, pure vanilla bean and cane sugar. We have no added vegetable fat or flavors and no soy lecithin.
(Okay, she had me at the new funky word cacaofevier).
All our chocolates, completely made in our workshops, meet the "Noble Ingredients" quality commitment that really provides our customers with an exceptional chocolate. (Patrician Chocolate, yes yes yes, I want some)…
We have a great variety of chocolates so if you would be interested in receiving some samples (Wait, someone is getting freebies of this stuff?) please contact us at your earliest convenience. (If she’s too busy to contact you, I volunteer at your earliest convenience).
As a chocolate lover and an amazing food writer, (Aw shucks!) you may also enjoy receiving some recipes as well as regular updates. (Sure!)
Thank you for taking the time to read this email. (No no, thank You.)
Please contact us if you would prefer to be removed from our mailing list.
Regards,
Customer Service Representative
Cluizelusa4@comcast.net
My response
Dear….
Thank you so much for your interest in introducing me to the fine confections offered by Michel Cluizel. As you are no doubt aware, Chocolate For Your Brain! is a blog by Sherry Antonetti, known for her restless desire to find the very best manifestation of heaven on earth as encapsulated in chocolate form. Please feel free to send samples for consideration in a future blog entry that will discuss the level of rapture achieved by consumption of exclusively “Noble Chocolate.”
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sherry
Oddly enough, I haven’t heard back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
If you sneak my work, No Chocolate for You!
Proud Member
Click Here to Join