Peter Singer and Marc Hauser make the case for abortion, clone and kill, and euthanasia, buried in an op-ed to convince us that no one needs religion to be moral in an article published in the Jerusalem Post, called "Godless morality." (Singer and Hauser act as if none of us have heard of "Natural Law," which is just as plausible - or more so - as their explanation. Why even they admit that we're built that way. The authors have more faith in evolution resulting in moral behavior than in the concept that a G_d, Who loves justice and mercy, would create creatures who hold love for one another as their highest value.)
The authors make their case by asking us to choose between "permissable," "obligatory" and "forbidden" in three hypothetical "situations:"
1. A runaway boxcar is about to run over five people walking on the tracks. A railroad worker is standing next to a switch that can turn the boxcar onto a side track, killing one person, but allowing the five to survive. Flipping the switch is ________.
2. You pass by a small child drowning in a shallow pond, and you are the only one around. If you pick up the child, she will survive and your pants will be ruined. Picking up the child is _______.
3. Five people have just been rushed into a hospital in critical condition, each requiring an organ to survive. There is not enough time to request organs from outside the hospital, but there is a healthy person in the hospital's waiting room. If the surgeon takes this person's organs, he will die, but the five in critical care will survive. Taking the healthy person's organs is _______.
Neither 1 nor 3 are "permissable."
No one may legitimately act to cause the death of any one else unless the one being killed is the actual threat to the life of another. The actions in 1 and 3 are wrong, even if the intention is good.
However, both scenarios are examples of exactly why "bioethics" was created in the '70's: so those in power (by fact of majority, judicial representation or by convincing the actual majority to be still and quiet because "that's not fair!" or "my story is sadder, more deserving, more heartwrenching than yours - besides, I cry louder and more convincingly than you can!") may decide who will be killed and who will not.
We might forgive (and make seem "permissable") the switch operator in number 1 because of the emergent nature of the act - because people are not perfect and omniscient, people make mistakes in the heat of the moment. We react out of compassion for the 5 that outweighs our concern for one.
The argument could even be made that not deciding might seem a decision.
But, these are immature and emotional rationalizations, not ethics: no matter how well intentioned, no matter how good the balance of the consequences might seem, it is always wrong to act to cause the death of a human being who is not a danger to life of other human beings.
(Besides - The lone man could be me or you or the one man on earth who could cure all forms of cancer, while the 5 could be Hitler and his cabinet - Or Peter Singer and his co-authors.)
The utilitarian would like us to think of people as interchangeable parts with planned obsolescence - we should feel the same way about the strangers on the other side of the world as we do about our own families, right? Isn't that the meaning of "equality?"
But they turn their final answer to the lowest common denominator:
Health care for everyone from the first dollar, but each person can only have the same amount total. (Tylenol for free, but no dialysis after 55 years old)
Public education, but a minimal standard so no one's left out (and no one is rewarded for excellence or punished for lack of ability or effort).
Public transportation, but only the elite can ride in SUV's without being derided for being selfish.
Since people are interchangeable, and we can always make new ones, why waste "limited resources" on someone who costs us too much, or who can't (yet or anymore) interact with us?
No comments:
Post a Comment