What’s Wrong with the World

You call yourself a philosopher, Lydia? Then try to behave like one. What about READING the article and rebutting its arguments?
Philosophers always have defended counterintuitive (and sometimes morally outrageous) claims. Plato approved of eugenics and infanticide, Aristotle advocated slavery, Schopenhauer (and nowadays Benatar) wanted to phase out the human race, some philosophers even tried (and still try) to argue for the immorality of homosexual acts - which, in my humble opinion, is almost as silly as defending the moral permissibility of killing newborn babies. Nevertheless, the mentioned philosophers and their arguments are without a doubt worthy of discussion.
Prominent pro-lifers Celia Wolf-Devine and Philip E. Devine once published a book on abortion together with one of the evil infanticists mentioned by Savulescu: Michael Tooley. The book has been favourably reviewed by former (occasional) voice of reason on this website, Francis Beckwith. ("Anyone who is interested in applied ethics in general, and how philosophers debate the issue of abortion in particular, should have this book in his or her library.") According to your logic we must count the Devines and Beckwith as accomplices and enablers of heinous doctrines!

Yes, philosophy is different from law making or politics. That is the reason why I love it so much. And I really believe that the same once held for you. Unfortunately, people like Culbreath will never get it. It would be a start if you dissociated yourself from Jeff's call for arresting the editor(!) and his denunciation of the journal as a "peer-reviewed bundle of fish-wrap".

There's no reason why a silly piece of pseudo-ethics tarting itself up as "philosophy" should be taken as seriously as Herr Welt als Willi; in similar fashion, there is no reason why such a piece should not have a silly defense. And so I say hooray for Grobi providing exactly that.

*Wille

Philosophers always have defended counterintuitive (and sometimes morally outrageous) claims.

Oh, well, that's all right, then.

Hey, Grobi, if I read every single word instead of obviously representative and absolutely clear quotations, _then_ can I call it a piece of disgusting garbage? Or not even then, because it's written by philosophers?

Is there _anything_ that a philosopher could defend, Grobi, that you would consider so outrageous that said defense should not be published, provided it were sufficiently dressed up in philosophical jargon and that a sufficient number of other philosophers also supported it to make a "literature" of its defense? Genocide? Child rape? Anything?

What neither of these unfortunates seemed to realize when they were crafting this abomination--both of them being flippant young hipsters just out to have a good time (Google their photos and see if you don't agree)--is that they have written something that will follow them for the rest of their personal and professional lives. They are forever on the record for having seriously advanced the murder of babies as a perfectly moral choice, and in fact at times an obligatory one. They will probably invest most of the rest of their careers in defending that view, as academics are wont to do when they have earned notoriety by a published work. And the consequences for their own sense of probity could be devastating.

They are engaging in special pleading here on the basis of their PhD's, and nothing more. I am reminded of a quote by Eric Hoffer, "The intellectuals and the young, booted and spurred, feel themselves born to ride us." Being both intellectuals and young, these two certainly believe themselves entitled to craft their wickedness behind a wall of privilege which the rest of us cannot penetrate even so much as to criticize it in the terms which it calls for.

The bottom line is that the nihilist-leftist academic, after decades of working assiduously to inflict his own manifest sickness on the whole of society, cannot now shuffle his feet and protest, "Aw shucks, I didn't mean nuthin' by it." The fact, moreover, that the authors cannot specify which of their beliefs has been misrepresented---they just blame the media for distorting their views, which of course could not have been made any plainer--is very telling in and of itself. The bad faith of such protestations of wounded innocence is fairly obvious.

Again, they have learned that anything an academic writes will follow him forever, and it will be interesting to see how long it takes before they retract even this meager "apology," and simply double down. It will also be interesting to see how richly the academic scene will reward them for their supposed martyrdom.

I'm guessing at least one of them winds up with a Nobel.

It was meant to be a pure exercise of logic: if X, then Y.... However, we never meant to suggest that after-birth abortion should become legal.

Yesss, yessss, of COURSE, how could we miss that? It was all about "If X then Y." If abortion is legally / morally justifiable, then infanticide is too.

But, of course it is well known that X (abortion) IS in fact legal, and not only is it legal, but they themselves give a great deal of cover for why it should be legal, and not one iota of the article provides a hint that perhaps abortion should not be legal. No reader of the article can form the least notion that the writers are ready to consider the stance that abortion should not be legal in a positive light. They have no counter-balancing comments to things like this:

even when those pathologies would constitute acceptable reasons for abortion

as if it were a given, for purposes of the article, that some pathologies ARE acceptable reasons for abortion. Therefore, the second statement above is pure bullsh*$. They DID intend exactly to suggest that infanticide should become legal, but they intended to do it under cover of a "discussion about" the logical coherence of infanticide.

Grobi, the only impression I got about the writers or about the article I got from reading the article. I did not see any media coverage of it. All I know is what they say in the article, and that's enough to know that they are peddling evil garbage. Any responsible and not-given-to-grotesquely-evil-theories philosopher, in a scholarly piece that even remotely touches on something like infanticide, will automatically include caveats, distinctions, and qualifiers if his discussion could give ("theoretical") cover to infanticide. They didn't do so because they didn't WANT to make those caveats and qualifications.

As for debating the arguments made, WHY? They make so many unargued assumptions, so many statements of premises that make it clear that they are not even remotely in the same league of considering open-mindedly what Christian ethics would propose for those premises, that it is hard to even begin. Practically every 3rd statement puts in some new thesis that is assumed without argument, as if the field of bioethics had already "settled" the debate on it. But of course, the only thing that is settled is that within the narrow, constricted field of bioethics as practiced by liberal freak Ph.D.s and their professors of liberal institutions, none of them want to take on the hard task of actually debating Christian arguments on the merits, and so they construe those arguments as "non-issues" and instead focus on how many dead embryos can they can skewer on the head of a needle.

Sage, if the Nobel group goes by their 2009 pattern, they will decide (in committee) to award the Nobel immediately, THEN they will find out that the article was partly cribbed from some other philosopher from 5 years ago, and then they will STILL go forward to award the Nobel to these authors anyway just for the "impact" towards world peace. ??

Sage is, as usual, sage, as well as eloquent. I could not have put it better.

His reference to the bad faith of the accusation of misrepresentation is spot-on.

There are so many things about this whole affair that should be offensive to any real philosopher, but that one does stick out--the shallow deception of their claim to have been misrepresented.

In Savulescu's doubling-down post in which he defended publishing the paper, he uses the following phrases without the slightest hesitation, to describe the paper:

--"defence of infanticide"
--"an argument in favour of infanticide" (he simply notes that said argument is not their _novel_ contribution)
--"arguments in favour of infanticide"

(And he considers the "deep disorder of the modern world" not to be the fact that people give arguments in favor of infanticide, oh, no, not that, but the hostility of the response to the publication of such arguments.)

So the authors are sophists. They wrote an article blatantly defending infanticide--how stupid do they think we are that we would believe that they were merely making the pro-lifers' point about a connection between abortion and infanticide? Then they lie and say they were misrepresented. Then they further insult their audience by merely saying that there are emotional, social, and practical reasons that might argue against legalizing infanticide. Then, just to round things off, they express frustration at the representation of them as being "in favour of killing people" while conveniently not mentioning that they expressly said in the article that they do not consider newborns to be "actual people"!

And they are so tone-deaf that they cannot even hear themselves in essence saying, We didn't intend ordinary folk to read that paper. We professional ethicists are used to talking coolly about killing newborn babies. Our sort of people have been doing it for forty years now! You ordinary folk just aren't part of the club, so you still have all these emotions cluttering up your response to a discussion of the ins and outs of killing newborn babies. There, there, we're sorry to have distressed you by letting you listen in on our in-house conversation.

Philosophy should not be identified with sophistry. Still more, it should not be identified with sophistry used to defend, and then to cover up the defense, of moral horrors.

As a philosopher, I'm disgusted by the entire sequence of events, and their arrogant, insulting, and deceptive faux apology just puts the icing on the cake. Grobi's appeal to me as a philosopher to join Savulescu in his pious declaration of the importance of publishing articles arguing for baby-killing absolutely backfires. It is qua philosopher that I do not want in any way, shape, or form to be identified with such people.

"Rotten?" said Uncle Andrew with a puzzled look. "Oh, I see. You mean that little boys ought to keep their promises. Very true: most right and proper, I'm sure, and I'm very glad you have been taught to do it. But of course you must understand that rules of that sort, however excellent they may be for little boys--and servants--and women--and even people in general, can't possibly be expected to apply to profound students and great thinkers and sages. No, Digory. Men like me who possess hidden wisdom, are freed from common rules just as we are cut off from common pleasures. Ours, my boy, is a high and lonely destiny."

As he said this he sighed and looked so grave and noble and mysterious that for a second Digory really thought he was saying something rather fine. But then he remembered the ugly look he had seen on his Uncle's face the moment before Polly had vanished: and all at once he saw through Uncle Andrew's grand words. "All it means," he said to himself, "is that he thinks he can do anything he likes to get anything he wants." C.S. Lewis, _The Magician's Nephew_

It's probably a good thing that the pro-deathers are getting more brazen in their message. Maybe some of the ignorant fence-sitters in this country will get wind of this and decide 'enough is enough'. (One can only hope.)

Well, as these "professionals" tell us, their message that it isn't wrong to kill born babies has now been peddled not-so-quietly in the university for forty years. They seem to think that the fact that it's not new in their field somehow makes it more acceptable morally. I suppose it's just as well that it finally broke out into the public consciousness, but not before becoming firmly entrenched in the "ethics" sub-specialty all over the world.

As usual with liberals, they want to have it both ways. The shocking title, the explicit connection to abortion, etc. All a kind of semi-quiet philosophical sensationalism. But when it actually becomes a sensation and is not well-received by the world at large, then they want to play the poor injured lambkins.

There's an old Disney movie I often think of in cases like this--Lady and the Tramp. Aunt Sarah has two Siamese cats who come to stay with her. They systematically and maliciously trash the house, and when the dog Lady barks furiously at them and Aunt Sarah comes running, they put on a great act of being hurt and frightened by the mean old dog. People like this are _exactly_ like that.

"What about READING the article and rebutting its arguments?"

Why do that if you can just create a petition in order to marginalize those who disagree with you? That's what all mandarins of philosophical acumen do when they don't want to argue.

A profession that actually thinks that morally objecting to sodomy is worse than advancing the cause of infanticide is beyond repair.

But the point raised by Grobi remains:

Prominent pro-lifers Celia Wolf-Devine and Philip E. Devine once published a book on abortion together with one of the evil infanticists mentioned by Savulescu: Michael Tooley. The book has been favourably reviewed by former (occasional) voice of reason on this website, Francis Beckwith.

For Catholics, abortion and infanticide have the same status. So if it is abominable to argue for one, it must be equally for the other.

But since abortion is actually legal, the Catholics need to argue but should the engagement take the level of co-publishing with pro-abortion people?.
That rises to the level of conniving, doesn't it?

By clicking my name, you can access my review of the book Glan mentions. Apparently, on that occasion was a voice of reason.

As I understand the justification for abortion and infanticide, the unborn and new-born baby is only a 'potential' person. And until that potentiality is 'actualized' in becoming a person, a baby does not have any human rights - including of course the right to life.

My questions are: At what moment does a child become a person and therefore no longer liable to summary execution? Is this moment a variable that pro-abortionists say is established case by case, or is there a principle involved? If it was argued that 'personhood' isn't acquired until a child reaches the 'age of reason', then killing children up to the age of about seven years would not seem to count as murder.

I don't wish to hijack this discussion, but I've wanted to ask these questions for quite a while. Maybe one of the WWWW philosophers can give me an answer.

As I understand the justification for abortion and infanticide, the unborn and new-born baby is only a 'potential' person.

Arguments like this are why I think society would be better off if we rounded up all philosophers in the West and gave them over to the Taliban for beheading with rusty kitchen knives.

Per you previous thread about natural allies and the missing context of body language and tone of voice, Lydia, that last comment is a good example. I have a habit of making such comments with a half-sarcastic tone of voice that cannot be conveyed in text (which is why I offend liberals so much online). Just thought I'd use that as a cross thread moment.

Alex, it usually has to do with made-up things like, "When the child can value his life," or "When the child has a sense of himself as an individual." Then you play the game of deciding when this happens. No doubt it would vary somewhat from one child to another. I forget what average age Peter Singer has chosen. No doubt I'll be told I'm "no philosopher" if I don't waste my time looking it up, but you get the picture. When _does_ a child "value his own life" or have a sense of himself as an individual? Ten months, maybe?

It's all pretty subjective.

And of course it could be pushed back if desired. As Wesley J. Smith pointed out, we could make up other things--like, when the child takes his first step. Or perhaps when he acquires language to a particular level. Since we're just making this up, it's pretty malleable and unprincipled.

Essentially, what one does is this: Take those qualities such as the power of generalization, the sense of one's self as an individual, etc. that make the _human race_ different from other species. Then, because one doesn't want to be guilty of "speciesism," refuse to infer from these qualities that there is something special simply about being a human being as a type of being. Instead, insist that each individual actually manifest from one time period to the next some chosen set of such qualities in order to obtain and retain that magical quality of "personhood." Thus one must first _gain_ personhood and then one can _lose_ personhood. In fact, as far as I can see, one could gain it, lose it, and regain it again.

For Catholics, abortion and infanticide have the same status. So if it is abominable to argue for one, it must be equally for the other.

Sorry, Gian, but that's not valid. Two acts can both be murder while one is gravely more evil than the other. You can have more heinous crimes of murder, or less heinous ones.

In any case, this isn't just a Catholic / non-Catholic debate. Everyone who thinks there are standards of morality, based on principles that don't spring from revealed religion, that preclude killing the fetus and the infant will rightly object to the claims made by these two authors.

At what moment does a child become a person and therefore no longer liable to summary execution?

Alex, the authors of this article appear to subscribe to one of the several theories that suggest that a biologically human entity doesn't arise to the level of personhood

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her... Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.

Of course, morally sane humans don't accept such a deformed view of what it means to be a person, so we won't accept the conclusions that follow from it. Although there is debate about the BEST way to understand personhood, there is wide agreement (among those not deluded by the culture of death) that a human being is a person from the first moment they are a human being - from the moment the gamete from the mother and the gamete from the father fuse to become a brand new human entity.

Philosophically, it is inherently problematic (read: incoherent) to ascribe personhood to an individual when that individual achieves certain levels of use of their innate potentialities rather than to ascribe personhood to that same individual earlier when they became the sort of being for whom it is natural to (eventuallY) express those potentialities. The moral morons who want to define personhood in terms of expressed and active functionality never really attempt to deal with the philosophical principles involved, they just ignore them because those principles don't let them conclude "a fetus (or infant) isn't a person". They are skewing their analysis because of the goal they desire.

Thanks Lydia and Tony for your answers to my questions. Though I'm not up to speed on the 'philosophy of abortion', I guessed that the concept of personhood used by pro-abortion zealots would be arbitrary.

Perhaps if none of the supposed 'vital signs' of personhood could be detected in human beings with, let's say, Down's Syndrome, (and they weren't done away with in the womb or at birth) the logic of the infant slayers would threaten them for the rest of their lives.

Surely the next step by certain professional philosophers who write about medical ethics, will be to justify the 'humane killing' of anyone with a severe intellectual disability who has escaped the abortionist's notice.

"Potential person" is perhaps one of the most confusing terms in contemporary moral philosophy. If the fetus is potentially a person in the same sense that an oak tree is potentially a desk, the fetus literally ceases to be when it "becomes" a person. For "having the capacity to become a desk" is not an essential property of an oak tree. This substantial change is the consequence of an external force killing the oak tree and rearranging its material parts consistent with an idea in the mind of the carpenter.

On the other hand, the fetus could be a "potential person" in the sense that I am a potential Mandarin Chinese speaker. That is, we say this is a potential because a human being has an intrinsic capacity to do several things with his power of speech, though the particular language spoken is an accidental property that the human being need not speak in order to remain a human being. But if the fetus is a "potential person" in this sense, then it is technically wrong to say that the fetus is a potential person, since it is not an essential property of its nature to become a person, just as it is technically wrong to say that the human being is a "potential Mandarin Chinese speaker," since it is not an essential property of its nature to become a Chinese speaker. If, for example, a child loses his ability to speak due to damaged vocal chords, we consider this a tragic loss. But if the child never learns Mandarin Chinese, though speaks another language, we think nothing of it. In fact, the loss of the physical structure to actualize a human being's capacities proper to its nature is considered to be a loss precisely because we know what sort of being it is. This is why damaged vocal chords is assessed differently than not speaking a language in particular. So, the fetus is not a potential person in this way.

So, it must be a potential person in the sense that the powers we associate with personhood--rational thought, moral agency, etc.--are proper to its nature. That is, the capacities for rational thought, moral agency, etc. are essential properties of all beings that are human, including fetuses and philosophy professors. If the fetus is a "potential person" in this sense, it is not technically a potential person. It is a person with potential, since the grounding of this potential is its nature and that nature's essential properties and the powers and capacities that flow from them.

Why the confusion about "potential" in contemporary moral philosophy, and bioethics in particular? It's because the vast majority of analytically trained philosophers in these areas believe that one can do ethics while setting aside the metaphysics of the human person and at the same time using the language of metaphysics (e.g., potential, actual) without consulting their philosophical patrimony.

If the fetus is a "potential person" in this sense, it is not technically a potential person. It is a person with potential, since the grounding of this potential is its nature and that nature's essential properties and the powers and capacities that flow from them.

I have an interest but no academic background in moral philosophy. These two sentences are like a chink of light penetrating the darkness of my ignorance.

Sorry, Gian, but that's not valid. Two acts can both be murder while one is gravely more evil than the other. You can have more heinous crimes of murder, or less heinous ones.

That is well and true, but that only reminds us that abortion is not simply some minor felony but a form of intentional murder. If abortion is murder, then any form of abortion carried out with the voluntary will of the mother has a fully formed mens rea. We cannot accept that logic without being compelled to seek a legal regime where such acts are swiftly and severely punished. Hence the rabid opposition of the pro-choicers. They instinctively know where the pro-life path leads: back to a society where abortion on demand is regarded as a form of contracted murder.

Grobi, I have just read this article, word for word.

If your sneering demand that I read the article was meant to imply that in some way, shape, or form the authors' complaint of misrepresentation is justified, I can only say that it is you who are disgracing philosophy.

If anything, the quotations thus far given do not give the fullest flavor of their clear, unequivocal, and outright defense of infanticide, which simply means that their complaints of misrepresentation are not mere whining and that even the word "sophistry" hardly does justice to the depths to which they have gone. By complaining that they have been misrepresented, they have lied. Neither more nor less. As anyone who reads the article will see.

As for "rebutting" their "arguments," I note that they _assert_ that one is a person and possesses a right to life only if one can subjectively value one's life and have subjective aims. This is not _argued_ for but asserted as a premise of the entire article. Why in the name of all that is good should I or anyone else accept such a premise? (Obviously, the authors assume they can get away with it because it, or a premise much like it, is accepted among their bioethics in-house peer group, for which they explicitly state that they were writing.) So "rebutting" the article's "arguments" involves simply pointing out that they are all based on an incredibly tendentious, not to mention false premise for which the authors do not even attempt to offer a serious defense. End of rebuttal. And _this_ is philosophy? When I think of the work I and others put into real works of philosophy...

I am planning to write a post simply making available yet more quotations from this article to show what liars these authors are when they attempt to say that they were misrepresented. And that is sickening on a level all its own.

Alex, you were asking about Down Syndrome. Yes, the authors specifically target Down Syndrome children, and one of their arguments for infanticide is that some Down Syndrome children might be missed, pre-birth:

An examination of 18 European registries reveals that between 2005 and 2009 only the 64% of Down's syndrome cases were diagnosed through prenatal testing. This percentage indicates that, considering only the European areas under examination, about 1700 infants were born with Down's syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth. Once these children are born, there is no choice for the parents but to keep the child, which sometimes is exactly what they would not have done if the disease had been diagnosed before birth.

Moreover, they say, ominously,

In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

Combined with their other assertions, this makes it clear that if the neurological development of a child--e.g., a child with severe mental handicap--did not ever reach the level to which they ascribe "personhood," then this child would remain killable indefinitely.

Let me ask this. What, in the opinions of those writing here, should be done with the academics who presented this article, and who are defending it?

I mean, it's one thing to complain. But what should be pursued here? Should the desire be that this editor and these academics be fired? Something else? Nothing at all?

I'm thinking right now that a certain 21-year-old I know is not capable of "personhood", a most annoying and distressing realization after so long. Can I just get rid of him now?

Good grief. Evil has no limits.

Crude, realistically there is little that can be done, except to continue to hold their feet to the fire in non-bioethics venues.

It would be nice to get some of the bigger schools and institutes of bioethics to cook up a boycott of some sort for the journal: we won't advertise here, and we won't send you articles, and we won't review your stuff, until you (a) retract your stupid anti-apology, and (b) apologize for being so bone-headed, and (c) ban these 2 authors from your pages for at least 5 years.

But except for some putative Catholic school of bioethics, any organization out there is probably totally in cahoots with the journal and the authors, (and the Catholic schools that maintain Catholic teaching have all been marginalized anyway). Mike T is right that if the profession isn't even capable of NOTICING when they pulled a big mistake like this, then the profession as a whole needs to be ditched from the public sphere and told to go dig ditches or something else far more valuable than the crud they are doing.

Ostracism of the 2 authors and the editor would be good too, but almost certainly they only frequent places where everyone else thinks just like they do.

Why has it not already come to pass that "medical ethicists" carries with it the ironic eyeroll long associated with such phrases as "military intelligence"?

Ostracize now would be welcome, but it's a notion as late to the party as the Catholic bishops deciding to say something about artificial contraception. Every medical horror show of the past too many years- ably documented in many of Lydia's posts- has a team of medical ethicists standing in front of the TV cameras soberly defending it.

What, in the opinions of those writing here, should be done with the academics who presented this article, and who are defending it?

Crude, I agree with Tony's answer. It would be nice if no one would sell them food. It would be nice if that were permitted. I would add this, too: Christian philosophers and departments of philosophy at Christian schools need to learn to treat this material with the contempt it deserves. You see here in the comments of Grobi the attitude we are up against: In essence, oh, how gauche you are, how unphilosophical, how ridiculous, for saying even so mild a thing as that this article should not have been published on the grounds of moral heinousness.

As a well-published philosopher myself but not an ethics specialist, I think that I bring an unusual perspective to this discussion. On the one hand, if some kind of "philosophical in-club creds" matters, I'm not just a layman. On the other hand, because my areas of specialty, though impeccably hard-edged and tough-minded (epistemology, probability theory) are not ethics, I have the layman's license to treat this sort of thing with contempt. I do not swoon at the name of Michael Tooley, who evidently invented the concept of "personhood" the authors are so ably (?) wielding. I do not care two hoots about the fact that "ethicists" have been sitting around for forty years in their grubby little rooms using their grubby little two-bit, made-up definitions to come to their nasty little conclusions about infanticide.

Now, I think this kind of spine and this kind of toe-twitching (with the itch, metaphorically, to kick the authors' arrogant derrieres) definitely needs to be grafted into any Christian philosophers who need it.

For example: While it is legitimate in philosophy departments at Christian schools to discuss these views, solely because (horrific though it is) they are prevalent, it is important to communicate to students that their prevalence and the prestige their proponents have garnered tells us _nothing_ about their truth. We are _allowed_ to greet them with contempt and horror. "This idea leads to infanticide" should be a reductio ad absurdam of the idea. We are not obliged to treat these ideas with respect, just because they have a "literature" and are "mainstream" and the like. This whole elitist version of the bandwagon argument has got to go.

So if nothing else, I would like to see these authors and the field they represent seen, explicitly, as an enemy and as full of wise fools who use their IQs to justify evil. _Not_ as a "field" with "discoveries" and so forth. And I would like to see philosophers willing to think of it and speak of it that way without being intimidated by people like Grobi into fearing that they are going to lose their Philosopher's Badge by so doing.

And, sure, if the uproar inhibits the authors' happy path towards tenure (or whatever the next career step is for them) and they end up actually having to work for a living at something other than spinning sophistry, all the better. Wonderful. But I fear there's no way in Hades that is going to happen. To the contrary, I'm afraid it will be: "Oh, you are the poor, brave advocates of Reason and Objectivity whose Controversial Ideas got you attacked by the Wicked Right-Wing Haters. Here, have some more glory, laud, and honor."

Tony & Lydia,

Crude, realistically there is little that can be done, except to continue to hold their feet to the fire in non-bioethics venues.

Crude, I agree with Tony's answer. It would be nice if no one would sell them food. It would be nice if that were permitted. I would add this, too: Christian philosophers and departments of philosophy at Christian schools need to learn to treat this material with the contempt it deserves. You see here in the comments of Grobi the attitude we are up against: In essence, oh, how gauche you are, how unphilosophical, how ridiculous, for saying even so mild a thing as that this article should not have been published on the grounds of moral heinousness.

Well, I agree with you both to a point. The problem is, I'm asking for something more tangible. What should we be doing now? Not in an ideal situation - what line of action should be moved upon tomorrow? Or tonight?

Let me give a comparison. Let's say these bio-ethicists wrote something that was offensive to "gay rights" groups. Maybe they said that inclination towards same-sex intercourse should be viewed as deviant, and that it would be ethical for psychologists to explore therapy that would reduce or eliminate such urges. I don't think said groups would respond with "This is terrible and horrible!" and suggesting that, while the idea is in principle capable of being explored in a purely intellectual sense, nevertheless the reaction should be one of disgust and horror and... etc, etc. They'd call for those involved, as well as the editor, to be fired. They'd want to punish the men tangibly for what they did. And nowadays, there's a good chance they'd achieve exactly that.

Are you both advocating this? Are you not? This is what I'm asking. I mean, Lydia mentions "if the uproar inhibits the authors' happy path towards tenure", and how unlikely that is. First, I think that's the wrong way to look at this situation, because it seems to suggest that people should complain, and maybe their general complaints will result in specific action. Why not cut out the intellectual middleman, so to speak, and just call for these guys to be fired? Yes, I know - not a chance in hell. But part of the reason there's not a chance in hell is because it seems people see fit to complain, but not are reluctant to organize and make demands when this sort of thing takes place. Shouldn't we at least try?

Now, maybe you guys do think the guys involved should be fired. Maybe you even said as much and I missed it. I'm just trying to see where everyone's coming from on this one. Personally, I'd be more than happy to call for these guys to be fired over this, or penalized in some direct and tangible way. Again, to use the gay groups example - when this sort of thing transpires, they don't merely bitch and go on with their lives. They apply pressure. Even over comparatively small stuff. Why not do the same here? And if the response is 'because we wouldn't get enough support', then shouldn't the response be to try anyway, and work on building that support?

Part of the problem is that if they should be fired, so too should a whole bunch of "eminent" (I use the term advisedly) "bioethicists" (I also use that term advisedly)--people who have named chairs at Princeton, blah, blah.

Do I think Peter Singer should lose his cushy position? You betcha. Should Minerva and Giubilini be fired? Sure. And not only for writing the article but for their sleazy and deceptive "apology" (see my follow-up post). But am I going to up and demand that _all_ those people be fired? Is there any point in doing so? They have the field locked up.

Lydia,

Part of the problem is that if they should be fired, so too should a whole bunch of "eminent" (I use the term advisedly) "bioethicists" (I also use that term advisedly)--people who have named chairs at Princeton, blah, blah.

Good idea. Let's go after them too.

But right now, the "eminent bioethicists" didn't hand critics an opening to go after them on. These guys did.

But am I going to up and demand that _all_ those people be fired? Is there any point in doing so? They have the field locked up.

So you go for the scalps you have a chance at. I don't mean you personally, like this is all on your shoulders. You're right - a tremendous number of people should be fired, and it's unrealistic to demand all those people be fired. But you can work to get two or three guys fired after a fiasco. Why not do that? I really hope the plan of action here doesn't intentionally end at "complain, then move on".

But right now, the "eminent bioethicists" didn't hand critics an opening to go after them on.

Well in a sense, they have. I mean, they've published the whole infanticidal "literature" that's out there already.

It's like the Augean stables.

I suppose I'm often trying to speak to people with whom I share some common ground.

For example, I'll consider that my complaining posts have served an important function if one morally sound graduate student reads them and says, "Yeah, the heck with that. I'm _not_ going to have my students take Peter Singer seriously. I _am_ going to treat infanticide as a reductio, just as I would proposals for, say, racial genocide" rather than saying, "Oh, I couldn't do that. I'd be looked down on by my colleagues. The most I can do is write up a solemn, quiet, rebuttal that takes them seriously and submit it to next month's graduate student conference."

I suppose you could say that as a philosopher, I'm looking to reform the field from the grassroots up, one spine at a time.

I suppose you could say that as a philosopher, I'm looking to reform the field from the grassroots up, one spine at a time.

Yeah, but complaining and hoping that someone out there is in a position that matters and is quietly intending to change things in their own little niche just doesn't seem optimal. On the other hand, it's not like I'm leading any charges against these guys.

I'm tired of looking at abortion "rights" groups, gay "rights" groups, etc, with envy, because they're animated and willing to not only agitate to put their dogma in every cultural niche they can, but they're willing to call for people to be fired over the most modest of infractions, and now and then achieve success. Those movements didn't just happen - they were built.

I'll tell you one thing I'm beginning to think: I've heard of situations where the stats and the pure math sections of some mathematics department split into two separate departments because they couldn't get along. Maybe some philosophy departments should peel off the bioethics section as a separate department. Then that could be defunded and disbanded all by itself without bringing down things like logic and epistemology. Sort of like leaving Sodom and Gomorrah before the fire falls.

The really depressing thought, as I indicated in another thread, is that administrators _love_ bioethics. It's so practical, you know. They're more likely to defund less exciting (and more defensible) branches.

Maybe some philosophy departments should peel off the bioethics section as a separate department. Then that could be defunded and disbanded all by itself without bringing down things like logic and epistemology.

I ask in honest ignorance: are the epistemology and logic departments of universities in vastly better condition than the bio-ethics?

Well, it all is one department. Philosophy. The idea of peeling off bioethics into a separate department is kind of a joke of my own. I mean, it's not going to happen.

Yes, logic as a sub-discipline is in much better shape. Formalism--a beautiful thing. Same with probability theory. And epistemology has plenty of problems of its own as far as recent trends, most notably the silliness known as "naturalized epistemology," but in the contemporary analytic tradition there's plenty of good stuff to be done and learned. In any event, it's pure stuff--real ivory towers. Hence, from my perspective, far preferable to the more or less blatant politicking of bioethics.

Regarding the comment to "act like a philosopher", I feel that there is a paradox here. On the one hand, engaging in arguments about the permissibility of murdering infants is like watching a snuff film; it is damaging to the soul and thus should be avoided. It is sickening and harmful to read and yet we also need to reason through arguments and try to understand them to the best of our ability. The paradox here is that it seems that we should both engage the argument and not engage the argument. What to do?

Kurt, I think there are ways of engaging the argument that can mitigate that effect. For example, here's a way of engaging the argument that I think is harmful: Professor, let's say a prof. who actually _disagrees_ with the authors, nonetheless says to his class, "Okay, we're going to read this article and discuss it" and carefully gives _no hint_ of what he thinks about it, believing this to be the only professional way to proceed. He then just facilitates classroom discussion, perhaps only making corrections where there are actual errors of logic or misrepresentation, and he encourages students to write about this sort of thing for their papers or on a test.

I've actually known teachers who believe that they should always take this kind of approach and not let their students know their own opinions.

That sort of "engaging" is harmful, because it treats the article as worthy of respect, as a view that is "on the table" for serious consideration.

I worry a bit that publishing something really somber in an anthology might also be problematic in something of the same way--as if one is engaging in a round table discussion: "Infanticide, Pro and Contra. Four Views." I myself would be inclined not to do that.

On the other hand, a blog post can be quite overt about its contempt for the views in question and need not maintain that artificial and problematic air of detachment that I believe risks giving such horrific ideas currency. And I think that a teacher in class could also avoid that air of detachment. (Let's face it: Many profs would make no attempt to appear detached in discussing ideas that pushed their liberal buttons. I see no reason to appear detached in discussing proposals for baby killing.)

if I read every single word instead of obviously representative and absolutely clear quotations, _then_ can I call it a piece of disgusting garbage?

Sorry. Even though one whiff tells you it is spoiled, you have to drink the whole gallon of milk before complaining. [/sarcasm]

Lydia, I am puzzled as to why university administrators should love bioethics as being either "practical" in any useful sense of the word, or that it should "bring in money".

When an ethicist is considered to be of "practical use" I suspect that typically he is being paid by a corporation or organization to run a seminar or training session on ethics. I would LOVE for organizations to routinely have seminars and training sessions on good ethics, but there are 3 major problems with doing it this way (bringing in an outsider to "teach" the stuff).

First of all, by definition the outsider is considered to be more of an "expert" at ethics than the executives, so how do the executives know that they have hired a GOOD expert instead of someone who is a shill and a liar, or even merely (more or less honestly) just making a big mistake? In point of fact, they have been hiring moral morons. Frequently. I once watched a highly paid, highly acclaimed ethics "expert" lead a training session to teach government employees about what it means to have the appearance of a conflict of interest. He set up a scenario in which an employee responsible for choosing a contractor chose a really high-class, normally "luxury" (think Rolls Royce) contractor because theirs was actually the lowest bid. According to our ethicist, since everyone in the world knows this contractor usually charges the HIGHEST amount, choosing this one amounted to giving the "appearance of a conflict of interest". Instead, said our ethicist, the government employee should have ACTUALLY PAID MORE THAN NECESSARY (pick a higher bid, in direct violation of the rules for contract bids) in order to avoid giving the APPEARANCE of having paid more than necessary. Instead, our ethicist should have used some common sense and figured that spending more than you have to is a bad way to set the tone for appearing to not spend more than you have to, and he MIGHT have read the legal meaning of "appearance of a conflict of interest" to find that it is defined in terms of a the reasonable conclusions of a "person who has the objective facts". Anyone who had the objective bids and seen the objective pay checks would have known that paying the lowest bid was the right thing to do.

My point is: professional ethicists are not necessarily "getting it right" any better than a smart, high-integrity person who takes the time to think through the issues cautiously. Practical ethics isn't a science, it is an art, and the people you want to lead are the ones who are DOING the ethical thing day after day. Only speculative ethics, the kind of ethics done at the level Aristotle tackles it, is in any sense "scientific", and the practitioners of that discipline may not be any good at all in turning it into a practical application. Practical ethics requires prudence, and prudence is not carried out in a vacuum, it is carried out in knowledge of the specific subject matter that sets the conditions for virtuous acts in the concrete.

Secondly, having the executives hire outsiders to do the training says to the employees that the top leadership relies on someone else to know what good ethics means. Which means that these ethicists are essentially "hired guns" for a limited purpose, and organizationally "ethics" is a box we check off, not a way of living. The executives should run their own annual training sessions, pointing to examples of company behavior that they want everyone to emulate. A hired gun doesn't know the company's subject matter like the chiefs do.

Thirdly, doesn't this sort use of professional ethicists (I am assuming they are professors of bioehtics in a philosophy dept) kind of break up the distinction between teaching / investigation of truth, and the partisan implementation of a doctrine in the world outside of the university? Wouldn't that kind of imply that the university is lending its weight to the particular claims of those professors in their partisan, disputational conclusions, rather than simply being the neutral playing field allowing all points of view? Seems to me that this "bringing in money" is, objectively, turning the university into a for-profit organization, and should imperil their entire tax exemption.

It's supposed to bring in money in the form of government grants and perhaps also private grants. It's also supposed to jump in on an expected cottage industry in training one's students to be on things like hospital ethics committees here and elsewhere (e.g., Canada) making "futile care" decisions and the like. It's also supposed to attract donors to the university by being able to say something that will sound like the university is doing exciting, real-world, cutting-edge things.

It's supposed to be "practical" because it has "something to do with the real world," even though, as you say, the "professional bioethicists" aren't really specialists in any objective sense.

In short, it's a big scam, but administrators either are gullible or else really don't care, provided the _appearance_ of "being specialists" can be given so as to bring in those government grants, attract students, and attract donors.

Remember: The sciences sometimes fund whole professorial positions with outside money. Philosophy profs are usually paid entirely by inside money--that is to say, the university's own money. Administrators obviously prefer outside money. The university gets a very large rake-off from outside grants. Professors who bring in grants are beloved of administrators.

The way you put it makes it sound like the university system isn't in need of conservative influence, but complete scrapping.

The secular university system is a big ol' heap of stuff. It very nearly has no essence. Lots of money, lots of different teachers, students, and departments, but no core essence. Some very good stuff indeed, some very bad indeed. If it were entirely scrapped, that would take down plenty of good along with plenty of bad--even systemic bad. The systemic bad is there, that's for sure.

It's supposed to bring in money in the form of government grants and perhaps also private grants.

OK, but the grants don't appear out of thin air. Someone has to be convinced that (a) this is really good stuff, and (b) it might not happen if you don't grant-fund it because ...blah blah blah. Either one of these should have a hell of a tough time passing the sniff test. I can see convincing a congress-critter that a new chemistry program, or a new micro-computer lab will be worthwhile "down the road" but in the meantime it's just a little too far from definite application to get industry grants. But: ethics? How are you going to convert an ethics program into bucks down the road? It's not like the ethicists the program turns out is going to be responsible for producing a new product that increases our wealth. All they are going to do is take a salary giving "professional" opinions to ride roughshod over the moral choices that otherwise would have been made.

Same with private money. Other than a hospital, there is literally NO practical use for someone whose degree specialty is "Ethics", and damn it, what were the hospitals using all these centuries WITHOUT a professional ethicist on board screwing with their brains? What's next, convincing GM and Ford that they need an ethics professional to teach them ethical ways to thread a screw?

If the objective wasn't "it will be productive of new wealth down the road" but rather "it will ensure that our health institutions stay on the moral path", well, again, you had to convince a lot of people with money to spare that it WASN'T happening already, and that these programs would make it happen. But what kind of morals did they promise: that infanticide would soon become legal and accepted, that's the important "protecting morals" that these programs will achieve? Isn't private money that is interested in morals going to dry up with that kind of "product"? Or, do we not expect private donors to exercise any kind of oversight?

Someone, 20 or 30 years ago, did one PHENOMENAL job of salesmanship on hospital boards to convince them that they should not rely on their OWN good morals to guide them. Probably succeeded primarily due to an inferiority complex when the hospital boards became mostly secular businessmen rather than religiously affiliated leaders - no longer being led by orders, churches, pastors, etc. Everyone knows that businessmen are evil. So instead we get ethicists instituting new morals that are 1000 times worse than the evils of the businessmen?