Posted on 07/29/2006 10:05:33 PM PDT by budlt2369
In the March 29 edition of The Age there appeared an article by Peter Singer entitled "Why we should ignore the Catholic Church on stem cells". In it he took the Catholic Church in general, and Archbishop Hart in particular, to task for speaking out on the stem cell debate.
The gist of the article contained these two themes: 1) The Catholic Church has no right to speak out on the stem cell debate; and 2) embryos are not persons and have no inherent right to exist.
Concerning the first proposition, Singer argues that the Catholic Church depends on the Bible for its positions, but the Bible means nothing for those who do not accept its authority. He argues that Hart's position is indefensible, "except within the terms of his own religion."
Several things can be said about such statements. First, Singer is again using the sectarian card. He argues, in effect, that Christians should be precluded from the debate, that they have nothing to say on the debate, and/or what they say is somehow lacking in credibility.
But the truth is, religious people have as much right to speak out on social and moral issues as anyone else. And the question needs to be asked, if Singer thinks they should not, then who does get a say? He would of course answer, in part at least, that the scientific community has the right to speak on such issues.
But several problems can be mentioned here. Science does not always get it right. Scientists can get it wrong. Also, scientists can be bought for a price, like anyone else. There is big money in bio-tech, and as Daniel Greenberg argues in a new book, Science, Money and Politics, there has been a history of science selling its soul to the highest bidder. Wearing a white lab coat does not guarantee that financial interests have no sway.
Furthermore, we know from history that science is not always as neutral and objective as it ought to be. Just consider the way in which the scientific and medical community was used by the Nazi regime.
Secondly, most people argue from the presuppositions of their own worldview. This is as true of the religious person as the non-religious person. Singer has certain a priori beliefs which under-gird his system, just as religious people do. We all argue from the basis of certain presuppositions. The question is, which presuppositions are more coherent and logical than others? That discussion cannot be entered into here. Suffice it to say that religious folk have as much right to argue from their religious first principles as secularists do from their non-religious principles.
Thirdly, if Singer rejects any religious-based ethical system, he nonetheless brings his own ethical system into play: secular utilitarianism. He has replaced one philosophical system for another. Secular humanism has as many "faith" components as do religious belief systems. Indeed, not too long ago the US Supreme Court declared secular humanism to be a religion. The concomitant beliefs that there is no soul, no afterlife, no God, an so on, require as much faith to believe as do their counterparts. Science just cannot answer these kinds of questions. At least that is not an area it can claim expertise in.
Singer's ethics show up in several places in his article. As a utilitarian, he sees no intrinsic worth in human life. Instead, everything must be based on utilitarian considerations. Thus he says it is no big deal that embryos be destroyed, since "the world already has more than six billion people".
But to argue that human life is expendable to help correct a perceived problem of overpopulation is itself a statement of faith. Science itself is not united in the belief that we are overpopulated.
And even if it were, the argument is the same as was used by the Nazis. The notion of "lebensraum" (the need to give Germans more space) was used to justify the slaughter of millions. This too was a type of ethical argument - even if a bad one.
Singer's other main point is that the embryo is somehow not a human, and he spends several paragraphs arguing that laboratory rats are more qualified to live. He regurgitates his argument against "species-ism", that humans should not receive preferential treatment above other species. We should not elevate embryos, he says, "to a higher status than we give to non-human animals".
Indeed, "surplus human embryos are an ideal laboratory tool. Much better to use them, if we can use them to save the lives of more developed human beings, than to use 'lab animals'."
Singer here is at least being consistent. As a supporter of abortion, euthanasia and infanticide, he has always been more interested in animals than in humans. He has argued, for example, that there is a greater case to be made against fishing than against abortion.
But it is Singer who now is bucking science. There is little doubt that human life begins at conception. Size is not the issue. A real human being, with a distinct genetic makeup, exists at fertilisation. This human life is full of potential, but it is not a potential human being. It will not grow into a carrot or a wombat.
If we are no better than animals, who is to argue that democracy is superior to the law of the jungle?
Bill Muehlenberg
"With respect to the cause of this extraordinary state of things, Dr.
Story remarks that death followed the attempts to civilise the
natives. "If left to themselves to roam as they were wont and
undisturbed, they would have reared more children, and there would
have been less mortality." Another careful observer of the natives,
Mr. Davis, remarks, "The births have been few and the deaths numerous.
This may have been in a great measure owing to their change of
living and food; but more so to their banishment from the mainland
of Van Diemen's Land, and consequent depression of spirits"
(Bonwick, pp. 388, 390).
Similar facts have been observed in two widely different parts of
Australia. The celebrated explorer, Mr. Gregory, told Mr. Bonwick,
that in Queensland "the want of reproduction was being already felt
with the blacks, even in the most recently settled parts, and that
decay would set in." Of thirteen aborigines from Shark's Bay who
visited Murchison River, twelve died of consumption within three
months.*"
* For these cases, see Bonwick's Daily Life of the Tasmanians, 1870,
p. 90: and The Last of the Tasmanians, 1870, p. 386.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_07.html
Utilitarian lacks beauty and goodness because it can theoretically justify genocide and slavery. They may maximize overall happiness or preferences - particularly if it is the slavery of genocide of a minority ethnic group.
And utilitarianism is inconsistent because if you are one of the people being consigned to slavery or genocide, you would not continue to hold your utilitarian beliefs. A belief cannot be held rationally if it cannot be held consistently. Ethical beliefs can only be held consistently if they adhere to the Golden Rule.
But that only scratches the surface. There are many, many reasons to not be a utilitarian.
Speaking of genocide, have you read Descent of Man??
"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest
allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species,
has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is
descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear
of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the
general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the
series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in
various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies-
between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and
in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna,
and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of
related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not
very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will
almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout
the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor
Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The
break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it
will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon,
instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
Darwin ch 6
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_06.html
Animal rights activists might be promoters of eugenics.
"58. What if I made use of an animal that was already dead?
It is not the eating of meat that is wrong but the killing of animals unnecessarily. As meat eating is unnecessary and generally requires the killing of an animal, it usually follows that meat eating is wrong. If, however, you managed to obtain some meat without killing an animal (or by paying someone else to kill it for you) -- for example, by stumbling across an animal that was already dead -- then I can see no moral objection to your eating it. Of course this also applies to human meat.
Recent archeological evidence suggests that early humans were much more inclined toward scavenging than hunting.
59. What about honey?
Bees are astoundingly complex creatures, they have memory and an ability to apply it to novel situations. They have an intricate social structure and are able to communicate detailed information to each other.
Millions upon millions of bees are killed every year in commercial honey production both intentionally and unintentionally.
It is difficult to say to what degree a creature so vastly different to us is capable of suffering but we don't need honey -- so surely it would be better to spare the lives of these miraculous creatures"
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/FAQs/Manual%20of%20Animal%20Rights.htm
"The gist of the article contained these two themes: 1) The Catholic Church has no right to speak out on the stem cell debate; and 2) embryos are not persons and have no inherent right to exist."
Singer is just like everyone else: he has opinions. As we all know, opinions are like body parts. Everyone has them.
His claim to some ethical stratosphere is just so much bunk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.