I was alerted by Nat Hentoff about an assertion made by Peter Singer–as reported in the Catholic Eye–at a Princeton conference around the abortion question, in which he claims that human beings don’t possess full moral status until after the age of two. I checked it out for myself. Yup. From my transcription of Panel II on 10/15/10 (press “Event Videos,” 20101015-panel two, to link to access streamed session) :
Q (beginning at 1:25:22): When discussing at which point after birth we would give full moral status, you gave…a legal or public policy point about practicality… Forgetting the practical or public policy questions, if a person is a self aware individual and self awareness isn’t conferred by birth, and we use mirror tests to determine self awarness…at what point do you think an infant would pass the mirror test and therefore be self aware and be considered a person.
Singer (beginning at 1:27:18): … My understanding is that it is not until after the first birthday, so somewhere between the first and second, I think, that they typically recognize the image in the mirror as themselves…Really, I think this is a gradual matter. If you are not talking about public policy or the law, but you are talking about when you really have the same moral status, I think that does develop gradually. There are various things that you could say that are sufficient to give some moral status after a few months, maybe six months or something like that, and you get perhaps to full moral status, really, only after two years. But I don’t think that should be the public policy criteria.
If you declare a human being to be intrinsically unequal–which is what denying full moral status to young children does–it can’t help but promote discrimination, and must eventually affect public policy and law once anti equality attitudes become widely accepted. I mean, that is how slavery was justified–that people with black skin did not possess full moral status. A different, but certainly odious, outcome would similarly result by denying full moral status to children before the age of two
That point aside, what did Singer say the public policy should be, which is just a way, in my view, of weaseling out of the implications of his beliefs. Starting at 56:22, after stating he no longer holds that an infant does not have a right to life until 1 month after birth because it is “not a practical suggestion,” Singer says:
Maybe the law has to have clear bright lines and has to take birth as the right time, although maybe it should make some exceptions in the cases of severe disability where parents think that it is better for the child and better for the family that the child does not live…The position that allows abortion also allows infanticide under some circumstances…If we accept abortion, we do need to rethink some of those more fundamental attitudes about human life.
The last comment is very telling. Abortion was once widely disdained, and was nearly universally illegal except for medical reasons. It is now broadly accepted because our perception of the value of fetal life changed, and is legal throughout most of the West. If we accept Singer’s views that children, perhaps past the age of two, do not possess full moral status, it would similarly change our perceptions about their lives, and ultimately lead to horrible practices and a concomitant change in public morality and law.
The Netherlands and its infanticide permissiveness further illustrates this process. Dutch doctors commit infanticide and nothing is done about it by authorities, even though it is technically murder, even though doctors have publicly published the guidelines they use in deciding which babies to kill. And there is already talk about full legalization of infanticide–which was the incremental method used to move general euthanasia for those age 16 and up to full legality in the Netherlands.
We need to hear very clearly what Peter Singer advocates, and understand the consequences that would flow from accepting his brand of utilitarianism. Then, we need to run in the opposite direction and fully embrace human exceptionalism. That is the only way to protect the lives of the weak and vulnerable specifically, and more broadly, guarantee universal human rights.
November 23rd, 2010 | 2:30 am
Honestly, I think very dark things about this individual that I can’t write here because it would be deleted.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:20 am
safepres: Thank you for your discretion.
November 23rd, 2010 | 2:34 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Peter Singer Says Full Moral Status Not Earned by Babies “Until After 2 Years” » Secondhand Smoke .. http://bit.ly/dX2wvk [...]
November 23rd, 2010 | 4:21 am
Hello, Peter Singer is usually pretty clear in his books, but I get the impression you don’t understand his points.
I think we can agree that self-awareness is morally relevant, since it allows the individual to have preferences about his own future (and you don’t challenge that in your article). Now, if we assume that a two year old child is self-aware in a way that a one day old child is not, you will have to accept that this has moral implications.
Singer is also a very vocal in the defense of animals. As you might now, very few species pass the mirror test, but this doesn’t seem to stop Singer to write in their defense. If you think he is inconsistent, then I suggest you don’t understand him, and that your article is the usual mix of slippery slope and straw man fallacies.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:18 am
I understand his points very well, That’s why I oppose them. His views destroy universal human rights and lead to tyranny.
November 23rd, 2010 | 8:26 am
Ah, yes.
All because…
“I have a degree – in philosophy.”
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/11/08/bioethics-cartoon-is-that-what-bioethicists-really-believe/
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:17 am
And I think bioethically.
November 23rd, 2010 | 8:46 am
In the short clip Singer twice said his conclusions should not be taken for policy or law.
Scientifically, he was speculating on when a human becomes self-aware.
In terms of policy and law, a human is a human is a human. There is that “bright line” at birth recognized globally (well, almost) that is unlikely to be changed by academic pontificating.
Your comments on slavery not withstanding, the trend has been toward greater human rights, not less.
November 23rd, 2010 | 8:56 am
The mirror test is a strange one, although he admits it is not precise. Recognizing oneself in a mirror, it seems to me, goes well beyond self awareness and into implicit comprehension of the characteristics of the physical object the mirror. Why should that physical object be favored over any other that a baby comes to understand? A baby can be aware of the world and others before they even have the category of baby and kid and another adult, and then see the person in the mirror as themselves rather than as another baby. I think that once you’re aware of someone else, you’re inherently aware of yourself, and babies are aware of others well before their first birthday. Not that any of this is actually related to human dignity, but to me it shows the capriciousness of formulating these other tests for who is a person.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 10:16 am
Matt: Exactly: It has nothing whatsoever to do with the value of human life.
November 23rd, 2010 | 11:22 am
@Wesley: can you please clarify a couple of points:
1) do you believe self-awareness (whatever way you want to measure/test it) is morally relevant?
2) do you think a 3yo has the same degree of self-awareness of a one day old baby?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:03 pm
1) Not for human beings. For animals, yes in determining proper standards of humane care.
2) No and it is irrelevant.
November 23rd, 2010 | 11:44 am
In our legal system, we ALREADY deny full moral status to children, and it’s a good thing that we do. Most people were outraged about the four-year-old being sued in NY for criminal negligence after having a bicycling accident. Children that age are not usually held to understand the consequences of their actions well enough to reason properly about all their consequences. Sentencing guidelines for teens are lower than those for adults for similar reason.
Are you really opposed to these kinds of adjustments? If not, we already treat children as lesser moral actors in a legal sense. The question is how to balance these legal arrangements with day to day treatment of others.
–Leah Unequally Yoked
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Leah: Treating children differently for their conduct because they have not yet attained moral agency is completely different than saying they have less moral value. Human exceptionalism, the fundamental basis of Western Civilization, the Declaration of Independence, the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights claims that all are born equal in dignity and rights. Singer disagrees. Singer believes in personhood theory, which creates ubber and unter menchens. Our actions come from our moral premises, as does our public policy. His beliefs must not be allowed to become society’s. It has taken us a long time for universal human rights to become the fundamentally agreed moral premise of society. Singer moves us away from that (still) ideal. The time to stop these views from infecting broader society is now.
November 23rd, 2010 | 11:49 am
Jeffery,
That’s like Chicken Little saying “hey, I haven’t fully thought out the public policy implications of the sky is falling, so just don’t do anything about it.”
And policy and law doesn’t say a human is a human, it says all human beings in this category are safe (for now), all human beings on the other side of this arbitrary dividing line (birth) can be categorically killed at will. Singer is just pondering whether your neat little dividing line where we can’t see the person being killed is a bit too arbitrary; he’s just a couple steps ahead of you in taking the premises to their natural conclusion, unencumbered by taste. Substitute “black” for “birth” and “own” for “abortion,” and you have slavery.
November 23rd, 2010 | 12:12 pm
“I think we can agree that self-awareness is morally relevant…”
No, we do not. Thanks for stopping by.
And Peter Singer is NOT interested in the moral VALUE as much as he wishes to reduce their suffering. He has said that certain animals can be killed as long as they do not suffer while it happens. So Singer and I even disagree on that.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Singer goes further bmmg39: He says animals can be used instrumentally in medical research, so long as the “quality of life” of those helped exceeds that of the animals. Thus, he stated, using monkeys to find a cure for Parkinson’s was justified. Of course, he also would say the same things about so-called human non persons. For example, he told Psychology Today that rather than using chimps in finding a vaccine for hepatitis, we should have instead used profoundly cognitively disabled humans who have a lower quality of life than chimps.
November 23rd, 2010 | 1:13 pm
Wesley: You say “[Singer's] views destroy universal human rights and lead to tyranny.” Opinions have never destroyed anyone’s rights; only actions have.
To use some of Singer’s admittedly outlandish and fringe views to “pigeon-hole” those who disagree with your position on the moral status of newborns is hardly fair. It is quite obvious that newborns, or even small children, lack the moral standing of adults since they are incapable of making the moral judgments which you, yourself, insist are at the core of our humanity. Were this not so there would be no justification for age-based protective legislation (which you happen to advocate).
If you’re going to offer a cogent argument against Singer’s viewpoint, rather than simply attack him, you’ll need to claim that there is no distinction between moral sense in abstract, philosophical terms, and moral sense as a function of biology. Are you really able to debunk Singer’s arguments while keeping your own intact?
November 23rd, 2010 | 1:50 pm
@Wesley: it seems that the core issue here is specieism, or human exceptionalism as you prefer to call it.
Let’s see. Since all individuals are different we have to see what characteristics are morally relevant. For example skin color and gender are not, among humans, considered to be morally relevant.
Bentham (and Singer) would say that the central question is the ability to suffer (“can they suffer”). Singer, being a preference utilitarian also considers self-awareness to be important.
Speciests would instead say that belonging to a particular species demarcates the moral status of particular individual.
I take “species” in the biological sense: human beings are human beings because of their DNA, so let’s consider that having a particular DNA is ultimately what is morally relevant.
Of course nobody denies there’s a strong correlation between belonging to a certain species, and the level of self-awareness.
But causation is not correlation, so let’s build the following imaginary scenario: we travel to a distant planet and meet the local population of highly evolved animals. They communicate using a complex language, enjoy art, abstract philosophical discussions, and they look from “the outside” exactly like us.
How should I treat them?
I would say that their DNA is completely irrelevant in deciding how to treat them. The fact that they belong or not to the homo sapiens species does not matter in deciding that I should respect them as highly developed self-aware individuals.
Since DNA and self-awareness are strongly correlated we have to do what scientists do, and try to isolate the variables.
What’s your take on this scenario?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Speisism is bogus, whatever your name is. Racism is wrong because it treats moral equals as if they are not. Treating animals differently from humans is not wrong because we are not moral equals. In fact, the entire concept is misanthropic and I reject it utterly.
November 23rd, 2010 | 1:55 pm
@bmmg39: searching for common shared assumptions is the first necessary step in any decent philophical discussion. We are more distant that I expected. That doesn’t mean that those were my basic sine qua non assumptions
November 23rd, 2010 | 2:42 pm
@wesley: you just added the “begging the question” fallacy to the ones already present in the article.
From the fact that you did not bother to answer to my scenario I take that you do not have any answer.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:08 pm
I have written often and repeatedly about this. I can’t be constantly repeating myself. I have a book, A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy that gets into my problems with Singer utilitarianism. Also Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America. Also, many published articles. Also, often here, which can be researched if you are interested. Thanks.
November 23rd, 2010 | 3:27 pm
ok, fair enough. From I’ve seen your arguments don’t meet a basic minimum that would justify buying a book, but if you have articles online I will try to see if there’s anything deeper than these circular reasonings.
November 23rd, 2010 | 5:47 pm
The self awareness test is dumb. Suppose you slip into a coma after an accident. You are not self-aware, does that make you have less moral worth than a human being? Of course not. That’s because you have the potential to be self-aware again, and God willing, this is just temporary.
Same with infants. Leave them alone, and they will become self aware naturally. Singer sucks because we already see what happens when we define a potential human as not: they get aborted, experimented on, etc.
November 23rd, 2010 | 8:07 pm
well, if this was only about Singer, I might think Smith was exaggerating, but Joseph Fletcher and others wrote the same thing back in the 1970′s.
And looking at children as less morally valuable makes me shudder, because it also implies that the mentally handicapped and cognitively impaired elders are also less morally valuable. This logic might be acceptable in Academia, but such talk might be less acceptable in groups who suffered discrimination in the past because they were considered as subhuman.
As for the “slippery slope”, seems to me that the “experiment” in the Netherlands proved this is alive and well.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 23rd, 2010 at 8:19 pm
The “cartoon” I made about personhood theory and bioethics: Almost every substantive thing the “bioethicist” says comes from name bioethicists in support of personhood concepts. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/11/08/bioethics-cartoon-is-that-what-bioethicists-really-believe/
November 24th, 2010 | 4:01 am
Three of Singer’s grandparents were killed in the Holocaust, and he knows very well the effects of eugenetic policies and discriminations.
He’s one of the most active writer in defense of animals and says we have a moral obligation to donate an important part of our salaries to help the less fortunate.
But in catholic/christian circles he becomes this monster who wants to kill healthy babies and handicapped people. Of course these people never seem to understand his points, and always attack some straw man. I am really not impresses by the intellectual honesty of these attacks.
Singer might very well be wrong, and there are serious philosopher who disagree with him, but what I see here is the usual list of baseless attacks.
Wesley J. Smi Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 10:55 am
I can only speak for what I write. But it is hardly baseless. He can’t go to Austria and Germany without major demonstrations against him. Why might that be? His advocated beliefs are no different than the eugenic attitudes that led to the euthanasia Holocaust against infants. If you are such a learned person, you would know that it wasn’t about racial hatred. It was eugenics and the call for infanticide began long before Hitler. It was suppesedly based on compassion, a “healing treatment” that was deemed the best for the disabled baby, the family, and the state. The first infanticide, as recounted by Lifton in the Nazi Doctors, was of Baby Knauer, born blind with significant physical disabilities, whose parents wrote to Hitler asking that doctors be authorized to put him down. Hitler dispatched Brandt to determine the facts, and did as Hitler said. The father later said that Brandt told him that he could later have healthy children that would be best for the family and the state.
That is no different than what Singer advocates, and indeed is eerily similar to his statement in Practical Ethics that a hemophiliac infant could be killed to ensure that a hypothetical future sibling could have a happier life.
Singer says things in passive prose and with a charming accent. They are odious. If accepted, they would destroy universal human rights. If it was a right winger saying the exact same thing, he would never be at Princeton.
November 24th, 2010 | 12:11 pm
@Wesley: your reply is a textbook case of “Reduction_ad_Hitlerum” fallacy
http://bit.ly/hzN1IY
and it has nothing to do with the case in question.
you still have to provide a credible link between the characteristic of an individual and its moral worth.
If it’s not self-awareness, than what is it? our DNA?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Alright. One more time: It is our <natures as humans that distinguish us from animals. And those things that distinguish us from animals, as opposed to mere physical attributes (e.g., the hawk’s vision) are morally important.
We are inherently moral agents by nature. Societies come up with different moral codes, but all have moral codes. We are creative by nature. We are rational by nature. We think abstractly by nature. We ponder meaning. The list cold go on and on. And unless a human being is immature, or disabled or ill, we all have these–and many other–unique and morally relevant attributes, because they are part of our beings as Homo sapiens. NO animal is a moral agent. NO animal is rational. NO animal is creative (think the difference between a beaver’s dam and Hoover dam). Singer likes to say that unless EVERY human has these attributes, then those who don’t can be used instrumentally. But he has it backwards. Since it is in our natures, we ALL enjoy the same value. That some don’t yet exhibit them because of age, or have lost them because of Alzheimer’s, is irrelevant.
Universal human equality and the unique status of humankind, is the foundation for universal human rights and Western Civilization. You many not want universal human rights. But I do. It is intellectually justifiable and morally compelling. Without human exceptionalism and universal equality, human rights become impossible to maintain.
November 24th, 2010 | 12:55 pm
[...] This is a followup to my recent post about Peter Singer denying equal moral status to children until after two years o… [...]
November 24th, 2010 | 2:12 pm
Wesley: The “human exceptionalism ergo moral superiority” argument is nonsensical. All it does is enumerate the things that humans can do and that animals can’t, and then claim that these uniquely human abilities are the only criteria for moral worth. Falling back on the “its our nature” argument is equally self-serving. What it boils down to is essentially “we’re smarter and more creative than you are, and because of it we get to have the power of life and death over you.” Yours amounts to the old German explanation: “Ich bin gros, und du bist klein,” which makes it all the more puzzling that you continually attempt to paint Peter Singer’s arguments with the broad brush of Nazism. The only way to make sense of your conclusions about the moral worth of homo sapiens is to posit something “divine” in the human species — i.e., that we are made in the image of the deity — but you have steadfastly refused to do it. Why don’t you own up and admit that that’s what you’ve been trying to say all this time, albeit in a very long and roundabout way? Why make obtuse arguments when you can just come right out and claim that members of the human species have “souls.”
November 24th, 2010 | 2:23 pm
@wesley: thanks for your answer.
Let’s concentrate on the main point: human “nature”.
If a person has a gene that causes cancer, would you say that cancer is part of his nature?
You are hiding your unjustified metaphysical assumptions behind this innocuous-looking term … and then derive results that justify your assumptions.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
That’s not a rebuttal, it is a typical assertion from someone who seeks to deny human exceptionalism or promote measurement by individual capacities. There is nothing metaphysical about our unique capacities, nor that they are morally relevant.
Someone with a cancer gene would have a propensity to that cancer. It would be part of his genetic makeup. But that would have no moral relevance to his value.
We have distinctly human natures. The differences between us and, say chimp natures or squirrel natures, are morally relevant, not just physical. That seems undeniable. Is it genetically determined? I don’t know. I don’t care. From my perspective, it doesn’t matter whether we evolved into our exceptionalism, were designed into it, or were created. We are what we are.
November 24th, 2010 | 2:26 pm
@HistoryWriter: let’s not rush. Let’s give him enough metaphysical rope to hang himself. It’s more fun.
November 24th, 2010 | 2:42 pm
@Wesley: we’re getting there.
You haven’t answered clearly, you said “propensity”, which a probabilistic term, while your “nature” seems to be a binary yes or no kind of value. So, is cancer part of his nature?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
No. Even if he actually catches cancer, it is not part of his nature. It is a disease.
November 24th, 2010 | 3:12 pm
@wesley: good. then we have individual that have certain properties: some of these (e.g. being rational) are part of their nature, others (e.g. having a cancer) are not.
How do you decide which properties are part of their nature, and which are not? are there any necessary properties needed to have this nature? any sufficient ones?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
It would seem to me that those capacities that are seen in all human beings, absent a temporary impediment, e.g., immaturity, or an exigency that removes the capacity, e.g., illness, injury, or disability, would be a good place to start. And then, after identifying those, we could see whether they are exhibited by any animal. If not, we would say that they are, as far as we know, uniquely human and part of human nature.
Moral agency is a good example, which is more than a potentially vague moral sense. We hold each other accountable for our actions, which is clearly a moral attribute. All human societies of which we are aware do and have done this. And these moral sensibilities are not instinctive. They were worked out through deliberative means, another uniquely human endeavor. They are wildly divergent, but they constitute something that, as far as we know, is unique to the human species. (Please don’t bring up aliens. If Vulcans exist, they would be exceptional, too.)
Now, you answer me: Do you believe in universal human rights? If so, how can you support universal human rights if individual capacities determine the individual’s moral value. If you don’t believe in universal human rights, what do you believe in this regard?
November 24th, 2010 | 4:23 pm
HW, you just don’t get it.
Let’s put Singer in a cage with a tiger. Singer ascribes moral rights to the tiger. The tiger, who has no idea of moral rights, eats Singer. Singer might pass legislation enabling the tiger to live its life free of Singer’s intrusion, and may sacrifice nobly to do so.
The tiger, however, seeing Singer dumped in his cage, is not going to engage in deep philosophical introspection about Singer’s role in the universe and his right to live: chances are he will make Singer McNuggets out of him.
It’s not nonsensical at all to make an argument based essentially on that difference. Like it or not, humans are the only animals that act with a moral dimension, which is the only reason we can discuss this. You don’t see tigers having symposiums on the ethics of vegetarianism.
November 24th, 2010 | 7:00 pm
@Wesley: you don’t answer clearly, but if I understand you correctly there is no single necessary property that we could look at to find if the individual has this “human nature”. It’s not rationality, self-awareness, presence of a brain, since all this things could be missing due to “illness, injury, disability”. I offered DNA, but you didn’t answer.
Since there’s no single necessary property, the entities that belong to this “human family” could be anything. A child, a dog, a rock.
It’s very easy to find sufficient conditions, and you give plenty of them, but you fail to see that that doesn’t solve your problem.
So, how do you identify entities that have this “human nature”?
I will happily answer to your question later on.
November 24th, 2010 | 7:44 pm
Dblade: You do see the point, but you don’t get it. Tigers are tigers, and the “nature” of tigers, if you will, is that they eat people who make their way into their cages. The “nature” of humans, on the other hand, is that they go to great lengths to discuss WHY tigers eat people, only to conclude that because they themselves DON’T eat people they are ipso facto morally superior to tigers. That is, until they’re trapped in a snowstorm without food.
November 25th, 2010 | 3:03 am
History Writer, and expanding upon Dblade’s example:
One of the points to consider is that even if trapped in a snow-storm without food, it doesn’t necessarily follow that all human beings would engage in cannibalism in order to save their own lives. Some might, and some would simply choose to die. Others would not even consider it an option even in the face of death, and the possibility of extending one’s life. It is this differentiation of action and the motivating factors behind our actions that make us exceptional. The debate itself – as to whether or not we OUGHT to be killing other creatures for food, fur, or fun – is uniquely human. The position one takes on this issue entails moral presuppositions of some sort.
And to use the phrasing ‘morally superior’ would require that you think tigers (or animal X if you will) are moral creatures. (Let’s see the science on that one.) Even if granting that animals ‘choose’ between actions (for instance the lion cub that runs from the hyena vs. the one that stands it’s ground), these actions (or better, movements) do not extend beyond life (in the biological, or ‘natural’ sense) and hence there is no morality attached to either of these ‘choices.’
For human beings, life may be the necessary condition for existence, but mere existence is not all there is to life.
November 25th, 2010 | 5:09 pm
@wesley: since you derive very important implications from this “human nature”, you should at least be able to say who has it and who doesn’t have it. Otherwise you are not credible, especially since this is a binary all-or-nothing problem for you. You seem to believe you cannot have “a little” of this human nature. That’s your central point I think.
To find who doesn’t have it you need necessary conditions, sufficient conditions are of no use.
So what are these necessary conditions? You have refused so far to link it to any actual property of the individual and his biology.
We are waiting…
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
I have already mentioned some things that are inherent to human nature, such as moral agency. But, no more 20 questions, unnamable. I am not your deponent. In fact, I asked you some questions. Your turn.
November 26th, 2010 | 4:43 am
@wesley: but “moral agency” is sufficient, not necessary. Newborns have no moral agency, but you believe they have this “human nature”. So you still haven’t answered. Either you don’t get the point, or you don’t know what to answer.
Anyway, fair enough, my turn.
Take a look at Singer’s last sentence: “But I don’t think that should be the public policy criteria”.
So, from a policy standpoint I think that universal human rights are a good idea. The boundaries are not clear, but they provide a legal framework that does more good than harm.
From a philosophical standpoint, no. Biological boundaries are very flexible, and a all-or-nothing concept cannot be appropriate to the boundaries, that is exactly where it should be most useful. I think Derek Partif would say that it is an “empty” question asking if X is a “person” (as he says for the “personal identity”). You can have all the knowledge that matters, and still not be able to answer that question. It’s like knowing the exact height of all the people in a room, but being unable to answer to “how many tall people are there?”, since it depends on the definition of “tall”.
If you were to draw important conclusions from your definition of “tall” you would just be discarding useful information (the height contains more information than the binary tall, not-tall) and make very poor choices.
Of course you are a lawyer, and not a philosopher, and you don’t seem to appreciate the difference between necessary and sufficient, and argue about policies instead of ethics.
Fair enough, but that puts you in a very weak position when you argue against one of the most influential bioethicist alive. And it’s made worse by the fact that you don’t seem to realize that you don’t understand the points.
I don’t want to defend Singer too much, some of his basic assumptions might be indeed be controversial, but you better clean up your arguments if you want to attack his positions.
For example you might want to read Kamm:
http://amzn.to/cW5bim
she’s very critical of Singer, but at least she knows what she’s talking about.
Now, please, what are the necessary *actual* conditions that an individual must have to have this “human nature”?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 26th, 2010 at 10:37 am
Unmentionable: OF COURSE I get the point, and I did answer. Do you think you’re the first philosophe to play philosopher and dupe with me? Your point is that not every human individual exhibits the attributes under discussion, and hence, human nature is false, or at least, that we have to accord those who do not exhibit those capacities as having less value as a consequence thereof.
Not understanding isn’t the same thing as rejecting the premise. I disagree with individual measurement. Individuals can be born anencephalic and have human nature–unable to be exhibited due to profound injury. I believe in the Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration of Independence. I believe that human beings are a species apart, the only ones with rights and duties. We do not discriminate against those, in matters of moral worth, who can’t fully express their human natures.
We are all in the same boat, regardless of capacities. That is the philosophy of the West, human dignity, equal individual moral worth. Your approach leads to tyranny.
And it is ludicrous to say we should have universal human rights as a framework but they are philosophically unsustainable. If that is true, we will not long have universal human rights.
November 26th, 2010 | 11:57 am
@wesley: I’m sure you’ve been asked these questions before, but I see that you keep not answering. you said “some things that are inherent to human nature, such as moral agency”.
I think we agree this is NOT a necessary condition to have this “human nature”, since you also say that anencepahlic babies, who do not have moral agency, have “human nature”.
Now, since you do not give necessary conditions, you are not able to say who does not have “human nature”. This is bizarre, since you attach such an importance to the concept.
You also say “I disagree with individual measurement”. So “human nature” cannot be deduced from the properties of the individual.
What is it then?
I see no other choice than this being some unfalsifiable metaphysical assumption smuggled into the argument. Otherwise please let us know.
I’m actually surprised that you publish my comments.
You see, the goal of this site is to “to advance a religiously informed public philosophy”, you should be clear about your assumptions, nobody will blame you for that.
Otherwise this is not a fair disgreement but a clear attempt to a misleading argument made in bad faith.
so please
1) say that you are not able to say who does not have “human nature” or provide some necessary condition
2) state your metaphysical assumptions (or lack thereof)
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 26th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Of course you do Unnamable. That’s what your fellow travelers always say. You guys are utterly predictable.
But it has nothing to do with metaphysics. It is true if we evolved in the neo Darwinistic sense, via random processes in an utterly material world.
Here’s what I wrote about this in A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy–which, of course, deals with it from the animal rights argument:
When, however, the debate finally reaches the point where sufficient uniquely human attributes have been identified to persuade reasonable people that they matter in determining moral status, animal rightists pull out what they think is their trump card; the game of the philosopher and the dupe:
Philosopher: What makes human beings different from animals?
Dupe: Only humans create. Only humans are rational. Only humans project abstractly into the future.
Philosopher: True, but not every human can do those things. By your reasoning, individuals who do not have the capacities to create, rationalize, or think abstractly should be treated like animals, because you have claimed that it is these capacities that matter morally.
Thus, Peter Singer has written that to treat animals differently than humans based on membership in the human species alone, there must be a “relevant characteristic that distinguishes all humans from all members of other species.” And since “the existence of some humans who quite clearly are below the level of awareness, self-consciousness, intelligence, and sentience, of many non-humans,” and hence do not individually possess the characteristics that are deemed to grant humans special value, then the only rational course is to reject mere humanity as the proper measuring stick and find alternative criteria for determining moral value other than membership in the human race.
Singer has it 180 degrees backwards. Moral value should not be based on the capacities of each individual—since that would obliterate universal human rights—but upon the intrinsic natures of species. Being rational, using language, inventing, projecting out into the future, creativity—the list is long—are capacities and attributes that flow out of the nature of being human, while these attributes are absent from the natures of all animals. The philosopher Carl Cohen put it this way:
Objections of this kind [that some human individuals don’t possess the morally relevant capacities] badly miss the point. It is not individual persons who qualify (or are disqualified) for the possession of rights because of the presence or absence in them of some special capacity, thus resulting in the award of rights to some but not to others. Rights are universally human; they arise in the human moral world, in a moral sphere. In the human world moral judgments are pervasive; it is the fact that all humans including infants and the senile are members of that moral community—not the fact that as individuals they have or don’t not have certain special capacities, or merits—that makes humans bearers of rights.
More to the point, no animal, not one, can be held morally accountable for their actions, which is to say, that no animals has duties. Duty-bearing—like rights-bearing—is a uniquely human attribute, a fundamental difference from all animals that is part of the core that makes us the only known true moral beings. Or as Cohen puts it, humans possess “moral autonomy—that is, moral self-legislation,” which “is for all animals out of the question.”
The game of the philosopher and the dupe is clever sophistry. The point of the exercise is to change the issue from differing natures of humans and animals, to the consequences of treating some humans as if they were animals. The game is won for the animal rightist when her antagonist is convinced that in order to avoid dehumanizing some people, we must treat animals as if they are human.
Not a drop of religion or metaphysics. The question really gets down to, what is your first principle? If it is that we must measure all individuals the same to avoid speciesism, or that moral worth must be individually earned or possessed, people will follow the approach you seem to favor. And that will lead to oppression and exploitation against those human individuals who lack relevant capacities. If, on the other hand, the first principle is protecting universal human rights and equality–mine and that of Western Civilization–we measure by species attributes, natures, or capacities, excluding none of us. Atheists can and do support this. It is not metaphysical. It is about liberty, freedom, and the protection of human rights. Indeed, it is the indispensable prerequisite to them.
November 26th, 2010 | 1:23 pm
@wesley: I see you don’t want to answer questions.
so, please, say that you are not able to say who does not have “human nature” or provide some necessary condition.
Without proper criteria to identify who doesn’t belong to this human family your statements don’t make any sense. Whose rights do you protect?
and this is where you smuggled the metaphysics: “the intrinsic natures of species”.
What is that? a probabilistic statement? Since most babies will turn into rational adults then even the child born without a brain shares their “rational nature”? I suspect you would disagree with this.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 26th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
It is irrelevant, R*%(*$(%($f. We don’t measure human moral worth.
November 26th, 2010 | 3:57 pm
@wesley: it’s becoming embarassing, so I’ll stop if you want.
but aren’t you troubled that you cannot say who is not “human”? Your whole building has no foundations. How can you say “We don’t measure human moral worth.” if you don’t know what “human” means?
I can probably stop here, unless you want to ask me something, or actually answer my question.
Cheers and good luck
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 26th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
I am hardly the one who should be embarrassed. My statements are clear. What is a human being is a biological issue. We know what is a human organism, as distinct from a chimp organism, or a bacterial organism. Now, I suppose you’ll pull out the sophistry that a cell from my mouth when I brush my teeth is human life. It is a cell, it is not an organism. And yes, a zygote is different than a cell from my mouth. And yes, I know we share genes with other animals. There, I just spared us some time.
But if we need to use human equality and universal human rights in policy, why do you go through this? It’s a mind game to you? If not, then you want relative human moral worth to be in public policy as Singer would?
November 26th, 2010 | 5:08 pm
I was under that impression that you believe that to have this “human nature” you need to be more than a bunch of human cells. You probably need to be a “human person” but I still don’t know what your necessary requirements are, and it looks like you don’t know either, since you keep making these statements about humans not being chimps, completely missing the point.
You have this all-or-nothing notion that doesn’t correlate with our biology which gradually changes from the fertilized egg to the adult human being, with all the possible spectrum of variations and diseases. Our scientific knowledge is inductive and falsifiable (à la Popper), and by divorcing yourself from this, you set up your metaphysical nonfalsifiable entities that you then use to derive your conclusions.
It’s perfectly ok if we agree to disagree, but you don’t admit that you have some metaphysical assumptions about this “human nature”, and that, I am sorry, seems to be bad faith.
It’s not a mind game. Real people suffer because of reasonings like yours, and even non-persons suffer. I don’t blame you, but it would be better if you admitted that you are writing from a religious standpoint. The site policy clearly states that, so I don’t know why you have a problem with this. Maybe the discovery institute has a policy about this, I don’t know (and don’t really care). It just looks bizarre.
I think human rights as a policy are ok, they protect against the discrimination of obvious humans (e.g. those that satisfy your *sufficient* conditions). For cases on the borderline I think they are not useful, and in fact more and more states are moving towards more flexible legislations. I think flexible criteria, backed up by real science, are more useful to help making sensible decisions in those cases.
Most religious people want truths to be black-and-white, no grays allowed, but we live in a complex world, and there are complex situations.
So dear Wesley, how can you decide if an “entity” doesn’t have this “human nature”, source of all moral value? It must be a pretty important thing for you, since you base everything on it.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 26th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
See, I told ya I knew where you were going. It’s sophistic, relativistic, and designed to go in constant circles getting us nowhere. Over and out.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 26th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Also, my dear rr%(tui%($ur: Singer’s quality of life ethic leads to tyranny. It would permit fetal farming, killing people in PVS for their organs, destroying infants, who don’t serve the interests of their families, etc. etc. , using cognitively disabled people in research, etc. The idea of preventing suffering is the new excuse for treating human beings as mere natural resources. It must be rejected at every opportunity. And that’s what SHS and my work generally, are all about. That doesn’t require religion–which is really your sore point. It requires a belief in human rights and upholding the values of Western Civilization. Nat Hentoff is a perfect example. Atheist to the core. In complete agreement with what I write.
November 26th, 2010 | 11:29 pm
SO, why is Singer worshipped – and Mengele denounced? Because his opinions have not yet put into practice? What and whom gave this 21st Century – Angel of Death a platform to speak on and for human life?
November 27th, 2010 | 4:36 am
@wesley: I understand that you want to shift the discussion towards attacking Singer, defending Wester Civilization, and saving us all from tirrany.
You need to do this because you can’t answer to my simple question. You have no way to determine when an individual does not have this human nature. That’s all. That’s the root of the disagreement.
You say an anencephalic child is a person. Singer says it’s not. Singer offers some reasons (which might be wrong), you offer nothing, and hide this hole behind the rethoric of saving us from tiranny.
That’s the difference between an honest intellectual we can disagree with, and somebody with an hidden agenda.
Now please continue to save us from tiranny and from these odious philosophers who dupe people with their sophistry.
November 27th, 2010 | 10:29 am
Avdotya: You say “For human beings, life may be the necessary condition for existence, but mere existence is not all there is to life.” I’m glad to see we agree on this important point, since it underlies the rationale for assisted suicide. The mere biological fact of life does not have intrinsic moral value.
January 21st, 2011 | 12:33 pm
[...] that a human being doesn’t have “full moral status” until after age 2). Here’s a relevant Singer quote to our discussion today from the Princeton conference: Maybe the law has to have clear bright lines and has to take birth as the right time [to outlaw [...]
January 21st, 2011 | 11:23 pm
Wesley
I admire your work on this site, and your willingness to argue (in the positive sense of the term) with the pro-deathers.
But that is what they are. That is where their reasoning always leads. They will couch it in language very much like the temptation on the mount . . . always put in ways to show you the advantage to you if you only accept their pro death philosophy.
They love arguing, but they hate being called exactly what they are. You can’t do that, their argumentation will run, and then you are guilty of all manner of offenses against them.
Sometimes, Wes, ya gotta shake your head, as a certain One did with a certain rich young Dude, and just let them walk.
Hey, HW . . . Fringe 19 here . . . how in the name of Kevorkian are you doing? :-)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact