He draws attention to the basic universal ethics of humanity that dictates that we should not deliberately aim at the death of an innocent fellow human. As he says, "there is nothing specifically religious in this view." Referring particularly to the work of Peter Singer, he warns that the ethics of humanity are now under threat because of the limitation of "personhood" to those who have self-consciousness and the capacity for "reason" and "autonomy".
Because these qualities are not clear-cut, the right to be treated with respect (and not to be deliberately killed) becomes a matter for negotiation and debate. Furthermore, as Dr Pink warns:
... once the ethics of humanity is abandoned, the alleged human right to autonomy may not long offer very much protection. For suppose a human is judged not actually competent to choose. Then their humanity may no longer protect them, since - in Singer’s terms - they may no longer be properly ‘persons’.The article was written before the passing of the HFE Bill last week and is a timely reminder of "the terrible directions in which this thought is moving."
I am sure that many legislators who have allowed this ghastly law onto the statute book have not thought through the ethical principles that have led us to the point where the importance of the human-animal species divide has been ignored in favour of the creation of hybrid embryos. It is not the first time that lazy and utilitarian thinking has led to laws that pave the way for horrors that the legislators could have foreseen if they had a minimal understanding of how important are the fundamental principles of respect for humanity and the right to life.
4 comments:
I wonder if the concept of human rights is useful. Would it not be better to think in terms of human duties?
A right to education, medical care, food and water is meaningless in Somalia: there is nobody and no real government to provide these. In Europe the rights and freedoms of people may contradict: the right to smoke or be in a smoke free area.
We have a duty to help our neighbour, to educate our children and so on.
If readers agree with me then we can argue that the "right" to have an abortion is meaningless. pregnant mothers have a duty to bear their child.
Remember that the journalists who first saw the crash of the late Princess of Wales were considered possibly to have failed to give assistance when required.
Readers may find a weakness in what I write. I would be interested to read.
The British government have set us off on a slippery slope. If the world develops according to Peter Singer, where will all lead to?
Doctors walking in after a delivery, only to say to the parents, "There was a complication and your baby will be retarded. As it is a non-person, would you like us to discard it for you?"
God help us and have mercy on us.
Well, if these people persist in this line of thought, they'd better watch out, or they'll have the RSPCA on their backs!
Well, now it seems this UK government is about to class pro-lifers (anti-abortionists) in the same group as neo-nazi's, preachers of hate and animal rights extremists. See the following in today's press (for more go to The Guardian).
'Measures to ban foreign-born "preachers of hate" and other violent extremists from Britain are to be outlined by Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, today.
She is expected to strengthen the rules on excluding from Britain those who are "suspected of stirring up tensions". The move will cover anti-abortionists, animal rights extremists, neo-Nazis as well as extremist clerics'.
Bottom line is this 'disagree with this particular government on pretty much anything' and you are classified 'persona non grata'.
When they run out of reasoned argument to sustain their anti-life policies they resort to legislation time and again, getting more extreme as time goes on. You can almost hear their shrill voices ranting on about 'human rights', oh yes, and global warming of course.
Post a Comment