to ''take the point of view of the universe'' - On life and Death

[bloom]

Unspeakable Conversations

By Harriet McBryde Johnson


He insists he doesn't want to kill me. He simply thinks it would have been
better, all things considered, to have given my parents the option of killing
the baby I once was, and to let other parents kill similar babies as they come
along and thereby avoid the suffering that comes with lives like mine and
satisfy the reasonable preferences of parents for a different kind of child. It
has nothing to do with me. I should not feel threatened....

I used to try to explain that in fact I enjoy my life, that it's a great sensual
pleasure to zoom by power chair on these delicious muggy streets, that I
have no more reason to kill myself than most people. But it gets tedious.
God didn't put me on this street to provide disability awareness training to
the likes of them. In fact, no god put anyone anywhere for any reason, if you
want to know...

It is an interesting exchange. In the lecture hall that afternoon, Singer lays it
all out. The ''illogic'' of allowing abortion but not infanticide, of allowing
withdrawal of life support but not active killing. Applying the basic
assumptions of preference utilitarianism, he spins out his bone-chilling
argument for letting parents kill disabled babies and replace them with
nondisabled babies who have a greater chance at happiness. It is all about
allowing as many individuals as possible to fulfill as many of their
preferences as possible.

As soon as he's done, I get the microphone and say I'd like to discuss
selective infanticide. As a lawyer, I disagree with his jurisprudential
assumptions. Logical inconsistency is not a sufficient reason to change the
law. As an atheist, I object to his using religious terms (''the doctrine of the
sanctity of human life'') to characterize his critics...

The tragic view comes closest to describing how I now look at Peter Singer.
He is a man of unusual gifts, reaching for the heights. He writes that he is
trying to create a system of ethics derived from fact and reason, that largely
throws off the perspectives of religion, place, family, tribe, community and
maybe even species -- to ''take the point of view of the universe.'' His is a
grand, heroic undertaking.

But like the protagonist in a classical drama, Singer has his flaw. It is his
unexamined assumption that disabled people are inherently ''worse off,'' that
we ''suffer,'' that we have lesser ''prospects of a happy life.'' Because of this
all-too-common prejudice, and his rare courage in taking it to its logical
conclusion, catastrophe looms....


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company

http://www.grasp.org/media/unspeak.pdf

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. unspeakable indeed

[heidler1]

2. Perhaps the prospect of the Singer view point being inevitable

should be considered.

There was a experiment carried out with rats in a large cage where in they were fed all they wanted and the threat of starving thus taken away, however over breeding soon caused trouble. The design of the cage gave individual spaces for the larger male alpha rats to fight and defend unto death. These Alpha rats would let females and non aggressive males hang out in their safe space, but the females would soon return to be on the brutal play going on in the main part of the cage where rat gang rape and rat gang murder was continuous. The rats never gave up on this type of behavior. I see little evidence that humans are much different.

The Earth is finite and the threat of over population is more real than terrorists in the long run. In fact terrorists are more often than not partly caused by over population. I believe that the rich in a way are like the Alpha rats that only gave to the less fortunate to preserve peace and tranquility in their own domain. I also believe that the church does this and the government must redistribute wealth to keep the whole system working.

[bloom]

9. I think if people were really going to be rational

we would have rationing.

It really makes no sense - if one is trying to see the broader picture (''take the point of view of the universe'') to figure that it is reasonable for some to have so much and some to have so little. LIke what you're getting at with the peace and tranquility. There is no community mindedness - which I think is essential for a more universal view.

I think some want to assume that we are more like rats and everyone should just get what they can.

Guessing at what will inevitably be the "natural" conclusion of the direction we are going - without rationing, or rationality - seems to be that we will destroy each other. I suppose the rich will last the longest - probably. But you never know. They may eat too many tuna steaks with mercury or some other poison that people don't know is a poison yet. They may be targets of some mob when their "individual spaces" don't protect them. :shrug:

In some ways - many do accept Singer's POV - for people outside of their group. For some people that is liberals - or immigrants - or people on the other side of the world - like Darfur. I think it is pretty recently that people have begun to try to come to terms with the idea that we are all on the same boat - and if it sinks for some - it sinks for all.

[Zebedeo]

3. This is a perfect example of

why morality cannot be defined strictly in terms of maximizing overall utility (or to use the language of this piece - "allowing as many individuals as possible to fulfill as many of their
preferences as possible"). Such a view leads to horrendous injustice such as murdering those that are deemed to be less likely to achieve happiness.

For me, morality is defined in reference to God's will. It is moral, and the opposite is immoral.

[Goblinmonger]

4. OT or NT God?

Big difference; same god. Guess even god's will isn't that clear. What if god "told" you to kill your child a la Abraham?

And again, athiests are immoral since we don't believe in god's will. You and bloom should really get together for coffee sometime and come up with a solid game plan.

on edit: the OT god would not have let the "speaker" of the quoted piece into the temple to worship.

[Zebedeo]

5. No difference

They are one and the same.

As you know, God stopped Abraham before he could kill his child. It was a test of Abraham's faith. Abraham passed. I hope I would pass, too, but who can know until they are put in that circumstance. I would just as soon never have my faith put to the test in that extreme a manner.

And again, athiests are immoral since we don't believe in god's will.

That's not what I said, and not what I believe, and I think you know that, because you've been involved in threads in which I've stated my thoughts on the morality of atheists. As I've said time and time again (on edit, such as here), many atheists act morally on a daily basis by doing God's will, even without believing that He exists.

Secondly, I note that you have misspelled the word atheist in the manner ("athiest") that irks so many of your brethren.

[Goblinmonger]

6. Yeah, I know your thoughts

Atheists are moral only by accident; when we happen to stumble on a rule of god that we follow.

So if there is no difference, how do you deal with all the abominations in Leviticus? You a charter member of godhatesfags.com?

It was a typo. I am grading papers and taking the occasional break to come here and relax the brain. 99% of the time I am spelling it correctly. Give me a break.

[Zebedeo]

7. I only meant it as a friendly jab

about the "athiest" I mean.

No, I am not a "charter member of godhatesfags.com." Elsewhere I have posted my utter disgust for the teachings and actions of the Westboro Baptist Church. I am generally not a violent person, but they make my blood boil. I feel about them the same way I feel about NAMBLA or the pedophile priests - they are despicable.

As for Leviticus, you have to understand it in its context. Leviticus included a set of specific rules for the Israelites, including a lot of dietary laws and other regulations. Violating those laws was regarded as sin. The good news is that Jesus has paid for our sins, if only we will receive Him. Through his blood, we are washed clean. This is the New Covenant.

[Goblinmonger]

8. The limitations of electronic communication

I realized it was just a playful jab and my "give me a break" was just one in return.

I guess the main problem I have with the OT (aside from the god thing of course :evilgrin:) is that people take dietary laws that were in place to stop people from killing themselves (cause, really, eating shellfish in the desert would not be a good idea) and treat it as if it were the infallible word of god. If more Christians focused on the NT and the new rules that Jesus espoused, life would be much better for the non-theists.

[Crunchy Frog]

14. Why didn't God stop Jephthah before he could kill his child?

Apparently the OT does endorse the killing of one's children under some circumstances.

[Zebedeo]

17. You are making a common mistake

Not every deed chronicled in the Bible is God's will. The Old Testament contains many stories of things that people did. Some were good and some were bad. In no way is there any implication that God "endorsed" the killing of Jephthah's daughter.

God certainly never asked him to kill her.

Keep in mind the last verse of Judges, which sums up the Chapter (21:25): "all the people did what was right in their own eyes."

As to why God didn't "stop" him from killing her -- that brings us back to free will. If God "stopped" every bad act, there would be no free will, and God would be alone in the universe.

[Crunchy Frog]

18. Well, it's a good piece of spin on your part

but not as good as the spin from those biblical scholars who try to insist that Jephthah never in fact sacrificed his daughter.

There are a number of reasons Jephthah did not make a human sacrifice? For example, verses 36–40 of Joshua 11 do not indicate this at all. Jephthah's daughter went to the mountains to bewail her virginity (that is, her status as an unmarried woman). The Bible does not say she went to bewail her death. The daughters of Israel also lamented for her, but it does not say for her death. It makes no sense to think she would bewail her virginity, and not her death, if she were to die. Also, sacrifices were required to be made at the Tabernacle, located in the territory of Ephraim. Any human sacrifice would have been a terrible effrontery to God. Jephthah had just fought a bloody war with the Ephraimites. It seems unlikely he would go into the territory of Ephraim so soon after the war. No Levite would have participated in a human sacrifice. To perform a vow apart from the Tabernacle would have been a double sin, since Jephthah would have been acting as a priest, which was strictly forbidden. Last of all, Hebrews 11:32 includes Jephthah as a righteous man of faith, which would have precluded him committing such a heinous sin.

Then, what happened to Jephthah's daughter? The logical answer is that she was dedicated to God's service, as Samuel was as a child. Her dedication was akin to a Nazarite vow, and she was not released from the vow for the entirety of her life. One other important point has been largely overlooked in the word "lament" used in verse 40. The marginal rendering is "to talk with." The lamed ל attached to the noun "daughter" is often translated as the word "to." It is also translated by the words "at," "in," "in reference to," "of," "by," and other words. What this means is that the marginal rendering could very well be correct, and means the daughters of Israel went annually to "talk to," or "talk with" the daughter of Jephthah—clearly showing that she had not been sacrificed as a burnt offering.
http://www.bethelcog.org/MOFJephthah.htm

What it looks like to me, is that for these "scholars" who try to spin this story to prove that the child sacrifice didn't actually happen, they do regard the act as monstrous, and see God/the Bible as essentially endorsing it. They don't seem able to fit this into a conceptual framework of what a moral God would do, so they do their best to spin it away as not having happened.

At any rate, it does seem to be a story that requires some sort of heavy spin to make it palatable to contemporary notions of morality, and you've certainly done a decent job. :)

[charlie]

19. Has there ever been

a more aptly named practice as apologetics?

[Zebedeo]

20. I read that too

and it seemed like spin to me as well. A plain reading of the chapter is that he killed her. However, I don't regard my post as being spin at all. A lot of bad acts are chronicled in the Bible, and by no means is it said or implied that God approved of them. The whole Book of Judges is full of wrongdoing, and as it is summed up at the end, people were doing things according to their own notions. What they should have been doing is following God's Commandments.

[believerinchrist]

13. The difference between the OT God and the NT God is the difference

brought about by Christ and the progressive understanding of God. The writer of the OT account thought God was tempting Abraham (Genesis 22:1-2), a NT writer believed Abraham believed God would raise Issac from the dead (Hebrews 11:17-19), and today I see that God was setting a standard that He, unlike the other gods in the world, did not require human sacrifice (in the years following King Solomon's reign, the Hebrews at times sacrificed their children to the other gods--God hated that). I think one problem with Christianity today is that people are trying to make the world conform to the biblical way of life instead of transposing the biblical concepts to our world today. Concepts like grace and mercy have no age and can be applied in any society at any time.

To get beyond all the stereotypes in the world, I strive to look at each person as an individual (no matter what "title" he or she wears) and to treat each one with respect and kindness (just as I want to be treated). Therefore, when people try to "control" who lives or who rules, I tend to disregard those words. I'm only one person, but I want to be a blessing to everyone I come in contact with.

By the way, I can see that atheists are just as moral as any other group of people. In fact, much of what see written by atheists about how people act rings true.

[bloom]

10. I don't think that "God's will" is all that clear

Esp. if you look at the old testament and God being on the side of Israel and against others. Everyone would like to think that "God" is on their side. If you are figuring that "God" is on everybody's side - that makes more sense morally.

One interesting thing about the article I posted - is that the debate is by two atheists. One who has no concern for the "sanctity" of human life - but seems quite concerned about animal life. The other who takes more the position that nobody - not the parents of a baby - or anyone - can decide whether someone else's life is worth continuing.


It was interesting reading the book "Collapse" - because it does get into the idea of different culture's morality - which actually seemed to make sense in the broader picture. Such as - you may have the choice - of some dying or the whole group/tribe/civilization/world dies. The ideal thing - I think- is for people to limit families - even if it is to one child - than for governments or some group to decide to impose genocides and wars or whatever.

Churches who are against birth control and/or abortion are NOT helping when it comes to averting inevitable tragedies - so in that sense those churches could be seen as immoral. I don't think it makes sense to argue that "God's will" is that there should be more people on the planet than the planet can hold. And I think it's nuts to keep assuming that "God" is going to take care of everybody - when the available resources would indicate otherwise. (Though if everyone limited what resources they used to what the planet could sustain for everyone - things could be different).

I think too often people think of "God's will" as "God's will" for an individual or for their group or country - but not for the world. If people thought of "God's will" (whether there is a "God" or not is beside the point - it's how individuals interpret what they think is "God's will") or "the point of view of the universe'' (seems like the same thing to me) - as what is best for all and esp. what is best for the health of the planet - we would all be better off.

[heidler1]

12. IMO you are an idealist, which is good. I seem conflicted on this.

However, even though I see the problems that humans carelessly create. Fortunately for me I am able to let it go without getting depressed because I honestly believe humans can't or won't, effectively the same, look at the consequences.

The other day I got into a discussion about partial birth abortion and this guy wanted to dwell on the horror of the act. I ask, "Do you think it's reasonable to expect a woman to suffer with an unwanted child for the rest of her life for a 15 minute mistake?"

He replied, "She had nine months to do something about it."

I ask, "Have you bought any oil stock yet, to help ride out the coming peak problem?" We had talked about this earlier and I just thought he needed a reminder that we all procrastinate. I knew that he had not, but saw the sense in it.

[beam me up scottie]

15. What's interesting is how you repeatedly malign atheists.

One who has no concern for the "sanctity" of human life - but seems quite concerned about animal life

Your deliberate misrepresentation is mind numbingly simplistic and offensive to atheists and animal rights supporters.

[moobu2]

11. Harriet McBryde Johnson

Lost all credibility with me when she actively advocated keeping Terri Schiavo’s body alive artificially, even though Terri had absolutely no higher brain functions (no cerebral cortex) -against Terri’s own wishes at that.

Harriet calls disconnecting life support under nearly all circumstances “disability-based killing“. Yes, Harriet thought Terri Schiavo was murdered. She’s said so. She’s an extremist. A good story teller, yes, but still she’s just a propagandist for the right-to-life cause. Her and her group (not dead yet) want to force their own view on what medical decisions the rest of us can or can not make.

She very intentionally uses her pitiful looking physical appearance, her broken body, and her sad pitiful personal stories as an appeal to emotion argument for political purposes. That type of argument can be pretty effective, but still it doesn’t add a whole lot to a real medical ethics debate.

So she’s disabled and found some contentment and even happiness in life -despite her disability. Good for her. What does that have to do with people having the ability to decide to disconnect PVS patients from life support or not? What does it have to do with parents, having learned the fetus the woman carries has an extreme deformity and them having the right to decide what to do about it, (like in terminating the pregnancy) for whatever personal reasons they have? What does it have to do with anything really? People like Harriet just want to interject themselves into all of our personal medical decisions, that’s all. She’s on a crusade and she sounds a little religiously deluded to me and maybe a little dishonest and makes wild unfounded accusations (like “He wants me dead!”). Kind of stupid really.

She’s a good story teller with an agenda that’s all.

[beam me up scottie]

16. "She's a good story teller with an agenda"

Excellent post.

I read some of the essays on Not Dead Yet's website and I agree with you.

A review the op's posts in this forum indicate Harriet's not the only one who has an agenda.