By rejecting human exceptionalism, modern bioethics threatens to destroy human equality and expose the defenseless to killing and exploitation. Take infanticide, which Peter Singer–among others–asserts should be permitted if the baby does not meet the utilitarian interests of the family. And indeed, in the Netherlands and Flanders, studies show infanticide is ongoing–based on compaaasssssssion, of course.
Infanticide is nothing new. The Romans exposed disabled babies on hills and murdered unwanted infants. More proof of this was recently uncovered in the UK, where a mass grave of murdered infants from the Roman times was uncovered. From the story:
An extensive study of a mass burial at a Roman villa in the Thames Valley suggests that the 97 children all died at 40 weeks gestation, or very soon after birth. The archaeologists believe that locals may have been killing and burying unwanted babies on the site in Hambleden, Buckinghamshire. Unwanted pregnancies were common in Roman brothels due to little contraception and Romans also considered infanticide less shocking than it is today.Infants were not considered to be human beings until about the age of two and were not buried in cemeteries if they were younger than that.
Peter Singer has asserted that an infant is not a “person” until about 1 year of age, which, if adapted as a policy by society, would deny infants and babies the right to life. And this is considered a modern, forward looking view.
And the moral of the story? Rejecting human exceptionalism would lead directly to a return of barbaric practices and beleifs that the West rejected long ago as brutal and unenlighted. Or, to paraphrase the old song, everything old is threatening to be new again.
HT: Bioedge
July 17th, 2010 | 8:50 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Lisa. Lisa said: BIOETHICS WATCH => Rejection of Human Exceptionalism Threatens to Revive… http://dlvr.it/2lCWh #912 #ocra #ucot #rs #tcot #tlot #sgp [...]
July 17th, 2010 | 9:04 pm
Peter singer has proven that he is not to be trusted, or taken seriously as a philosopher. He keeps changing when a baby becomes a person. In his book Practical Ethics (Cambridge University Press), he asserts that one isn’t a “person” until a month after birth, now it’s a year. It really does not matter,since one month olds, and one year olds, don’t have the traits that he considers constituitive of persons (rationaltiy, and self consciousness), so he contradicts himself.
The reduction of infanticide was due, in large part, to the emergence of Christianity, and its assertion that all people are equal. A huge advance human moral development, and civilization.
July 18th, 2010 | 6:00 am
You argue that “a rejection of human exceptionalism leads inevitably to a return of barbaric practices”. This argument appears to be invalid. I will try to show why.
There are three broad ways of rejecting HE:
While still conceding the importance of (genetic or nominal) humanity one may seek to
(1) narrow the rights and privileges one accords humans by claiming that they apply not to all members of the human race but only to those possessing certain attributes (like rationality or self-consciousness).
(2) extend those rights and privileges to other creatures possessing certain attributes (like consciousness)
Or one may completely reject “humanity” as a criterion and
(3) posit that our moral duties towards creatures result solely from other attributes (like consciousness or the existence of individual preferences) and not directly from any considerations about species membership.
The ancient Romans (and slave-owning Founding Fathers) fall into the first category, some animal rights activists fall into the second though most of them may be comfortably placed with Peter Singer in the third category.
The whole point of this is of course to highlight that some denials of human exceptionalism serve to narrow the range of creature towards which we feel morally responsible and others tend to broaden that circle. The effects of this denial are hence completely dependent on the precise shape this rejection takes. Some would make us more compassionate, inclusive, creatures (less likely to kill, in general) and others would not. “Human exceptionalism” appears to be a rather poor lens through which to view this.
For instance, how is it possible to assert that granting animals rights (a flagrant denial of HE if there ever was one) would lead to “a revival of Roman bioethics”? One would have thought that it would evince (and encourage) a greater reverence for life in general and would, if anything, take us further away from the days in which infanticide was both common and socially acceptable.
July 18th, 2010 | 9:34 am
I’m not quite sure what the destruction of Pompeii in 79 CE (photo of bodies) has to do with Roman bioethics. If you’d like art that’s more relevant to the subject there are wonderful drawings available of early Christians — some being put to useful tasks like illuminating Nero’s gardens and others being fed to lions.
Granted the monotony of the same diet, day in and day out, was blatantly cruel to the lions, but at least these activities capture the Roman persona a lot better than a random natural disaster that was the fault of no one in particular.
July 18th, 2010 | 7:12 pm
HW: I rather like the image, actually. It may not be very representative of life in ancient Rome but at least it conveys the message that traces of Rome’s past survive to speak to us now.
July 18th, 2010 | 9:24 pm
HistoryWriter:
Awesome comment! Afraid of God much? you really don’t need to be.
July 19th, 2010 | 5:41 am
Bryan: God? Who dat?
July 19th, 2010 | 7:31 am
im not sure if peter singer has the right to life anymore…i bet he would feel different if he lost the absolute right for life.
July 19th, 2010 | 9:27 am
The Bible never says that all people are equal to one another, as BL implies.
“Rejecting human exceptionalism would lead directly to a return of barbaric practices and beleifs that the West rejected long ago as brutal and *unenlighted.” (My emphasis.)
We hear the words, science and reason, parroted ad nauseum. Yet, proponents of the Enlightenment were initiated by pagan ethics and ancient superstitions, as old as the first mystery schools.
It’s interesting that the Romans were mentioned, since none of the ‘secular’ (sic) humanists seem to notice that their ideals are represented by the cultic idols of that culture.
July 19th, 2010 | 1:54 pm
So, nothing that isn’t a human, one year or older, has the right to live because it’s not a person?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 19th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
That’s the essence of personhood theory, shirley elizabeth. Being human is morally irrelevant. What matters is capacities, such as being self aware. That means there are so called human non persons, including infants. The exact length of baby non personhood varies among bioethicists, but not the concept–at least among the mainstream (with a few exceptions).
July 20th, 2010 | 12:15 pm
Social utilitarians are not, in fact, concerned with capacities.
Potential exists, only hypothetically, in the indefinite future.
These people are capricious, only concerned with the here-and-now.
I remember a cartoon of a cat, which gets depressed when it’s toy, a yellow ribbon, no longer moves in the wind. There is a known personality trait, in which a useless pawn is considered “dead.”
I’ve personally witnessed shysters, who I would call obvious frauds. They operated by appealing to people who were more base than they were.
Unethical people rise to power, because they prioritize others according to suggestibility.
Are you worthwhile, intelligent, skilled? Those are capacities, and potentials. They do not make you “fit,” in the hear-and-now. You may legitimately be a well-rounded and engaging person, but an authority figure may see you as inanimate for the purposes of his popularity.
He is the god of an insular universe, which revolves around him. He is the center, and source of all life. If he doesn’t perceive himself in you, or your actions, they are inanimate to him.
It’s interesting that, in cases of emperor worship, the “deadbeats,” were often intellectuals and men of means. There were many examples of the strong being “unfit.”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact