A posting at Harrys Place discusses the statement of a Tory councillor who
... argues that severely disabled children are a massive drain on resources; that they soak up money that would be better used for “reducing NHS waiting lists” rather than on those who are labelled “unproductive”.
So, as some foresaw, Terri Schiavo may have been the harbinger of a growing movement brought on by excessive rationality and a monopoly of health care by the state. I recall reading recently that doctors in the Netherlands were thinking of expanding their own proposals along these lines, with similar reasoning and rationalization. See this article in Time Europe, Europe's Way of Death, for other examples. I can't help thinking that Europe falling away from Christianity has something to do with this. Whether superstition or not, I believe the Christian teachings about the sanctity of life and the bearing of life's trials had a value in itself that informed European civilization and accounted for much of its success. The loss of Christianity may have unintended consequences. Perhaps Pope Benedict will have the role of reconverting the barbarians -- if he can. This moral challenge and developing debate may even shed some light on Bush's recent choice of Miers to serve on the Supreme Court.
15 comments:
chuck:
This is why I did not support the killing of Terri Schiavo.[yes I know it was a blissful and euphoric experience for her if in fact she was capable of a blissful and euphoric experience.]
It was not because I thought she would walk and talk again.
It was not because her husband was a prick..
It was because she was a human being.
And some of these people need little more than food and a warm bed and someone who cares about them.
What about people with Alzheimers or the elderly and infirm?
My grandmother was the most devout woman I ever knew and whenever we were unkind to someone smaller or weaker she would always "What you do to the least of mine, you do to me."
I think that instilled us a sense of responsibility for other people.
Once we decide to play God ourselves, where do we draw that line?
What was that wonderful phrase thibaud was using today? Something about the intersection of biology, technology, and sexuality? There isn't any doubt in my mind that we've been playing God since at least the time of the French Revolution and we will continue to do so. Science gives us every day a little more power with which to play God, and we use it. And there may be a direct connection between our ability to play God and our loss of faith in God. I'm sure we'll see more and more of these cases. Eugenics never really ended. We've been trying to perfect both our own and other species for millenia (14 millenia, in the case of dogs). I don't think it will be too long before genetic engineering is applied directly to human beings to make better soldiers. And I think I have a a pretty good idea which country or countries will go down this path first.
Science gives us every day a little more power with which to play God, and we use it.
I am not so worried about genetic engineering and playing God in that way. I do think there is a lot of profound thought about social things to be found in religion, and this hard earned knowledge should not just be tossed aside in favor of cost/benefit analysis. Let's not forget McNamara and the rest of the best and brightest.
I do think there is a lot of profound thought about social things to be found in religion,
Which religion? When I was in first or second grade I read the whole Bible, cover to cover. Finding an account of incest right there surprised me; I kept my discovery to myself. I've not exposed my children to the Bible at all; I've done no more for my youngest son than to read him the Ten Commandments once. There's much to be learned in the Bible, true, but is it really better than the immense insight one gains from Greek mythology? And doesn't the very down-to-earth knowledge of humanity embodied in the Talmud have more to offer than either? What about the Bhagavad Gita? Shouldn't we be learning from it too?
Considering the fact that scientists can use genetically engineered spider webs for body armor, I believe anything.
No replicators yet though.
It is rather like the ancient Egyptians and the pyramids when one thinks of advanced technology in a world where signficant numbers of people do not have electricity.
The gap is stunning.
But I don't think chuck is talking about science. I think he is talking about morality.
meaninglesshotair:
To be truthful there are some people who say that Jesus and Buddha knew one another.
Many major religions have similar themes and it amazing how often caring for the poor and needy are among those themes.
And there is a lot more to the bible than incest.
I just read a book on the debunking of the DaVinci code that was written by an Oxford educated scholar who learned to read Greek, Hebrew and Latin just so he could read original manuscripts.
And I don't think he is a Christian himself.
terrye,
I have no particular bone to pick with Christianity and I think chuck's point about our European loss of faith is spot on. As you said on Roger's, there are worse things to be than a Christian. And many of those worse things are trying to blow us up even as we post.
MHA:
Ain't that the truth...
but the history of different religions is interesting and I find it curious how people keep coming back to the same ideas.
MHA,
It seems to me in choosing to not use a standard moral/ethical code for inculcating values in children you are running a fairly heavy risk in two areas. The first is that the system that you do use will be flawed by inconsistency in application due to its ad hoc nature. The second is that adolescents have a tendency to reject parental guidance at a certain point and such a rejection could have rather perilous consequences if no standard system exists to provide fallback guidance.
Another reason why ad hoc systems will have a tendency to fail is simply reversion to mean regarding children's intelligence. The fact that a mother or father can generate a satisfactory ad hoc system is no guarantee that a daughter or son will have the capacity to apprehend the system generated.
I don't see that your choice is significantly different than that proposed by Rousseau. It seems a rather poor bet on man's nature and abilities.
The argument concerning the development of a smorgasboard from a variety of belief structures must return to man's nature and intelligence. It might work for all those to the right of the mean point but a large portion of those to the left are barely trainable, let alone educable. Such a system would seem rather presumptuous on one hand and very cruel on the other. To offer someone a choice which they are intellectually incapable of making seems rather like having a blind man choose his favorite color.
Another reason why ad hoc systems will have a tendency to fail is simply reversion to mean regarding children's intelligence.
It is not clear to me that morality is a direct outcome of intelligence. So even for the intelligent I would suggest a good deal of training, nor should any child have to work it out for themselves. Later modifications, sure, basic morality, no.
I find myself still curious about the upbringing of John Walker, for instance.
When the state takes responsibility for providing health care for all, as it does in Britain, then inevitibly it has to make these kinds of decisions. There is a finite amount of health care resources and tough calls must be made as to who loses out. The same is true in the US, although our system permits more flexbility.
If our system of government is functioning as intended, none of this should be a concern of the courts.
Knuck
"We'd best start talking about this stuff before the likes of Prof. Singer get their opportunity to start making decisions for us."
Yes? Well, that would entail having that "frank discussion" I was proposing, before the mob here started chanting "Down with the pointy-headed intellectuals." Led by Rick Ballard, of all people.
If you are actually interested in talking about it, let me know.
"Led by Rick Ballard, of all people."
You're right, I grabbed the wrong cliche. I don't believe that the intellectual punditry on the right is enhancing their reputation by demeaning the President's decision to make a public payment on the promises that the evangelicals relied upon when they came out to the polls. Sometimes its checkers and not chess.
Rick
Your assumption that the evangelicals are delighted with Miers is unproven at best. Your contention that Bush made some sort of promise to them is simply wrong.
I'd say that the evangelicals would like to see Roe overturned. Also that they would like to see the SC stop using the First Amdt as a battering ram against religion. In other words, they want judges who will read the constitution as written, like Thomas and Scalia. That is the type of person they were expecting from Bush. And the type of person they were promised.
To suggest that they want an "envangelical seat" on the court is to insult them.
Bush did not pick Miers because he wanted to place an evangelical on the court. He did it because he was given a list of people acceptable to the D's and the Seven Dwarves, and she was, presumably, the best on that list.
Nobody has offered a reason why this was a better move than his simply selecting another quality judge who would have given the evangelicals what they wanted. Except that it would cause a "fight", which is now apparently the correct term for what was formerly called a "vote".
Incidentally, you see this as an offering to the base, since evangelicals are assuredly the base. At the same time, many others, like terrye, are claiming that it is precisely the base which is in an uproar about Miers, and is urging them to sit out the next election.
It strikes me that the Miers supporters are a rather confused lot.
Watching the normally educated and intelligent people at Rogers talk like some Jacobin mob is frankly disgusting. Eveyones IQ seems to have dropped twenty points in the last few days. If people have cogent arguments to make then for heavens sake, make them. This type of identity and class politics makes me feel like I'm at DU.
Flenser,
I may be wrong, that will be proven during the confirmation proceedings. The promise that I'm referring to is the same promise that the law profs and pundits are referring to.
If the pick was predicated upon the avoidance of a fight then it was a mistake because the fight cannot be avoided.
Post a Comment