What’s Wrong with the World

Hmm, let's see:

However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view.

and

What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.

Ah, so the JME is not trying to promote a particular moral view, at least when it comes to minor issues like the morality of murdering newborn babies. But responding angrily to people who advocate murdering babies - why THAT'S so far beyond the pale that they have to make an exception!

The writers of the article and the editor of JME can go to hell. Oh wait, they're already going. I just regret that I can't watch them burn.

"but the well-being of the family is at risk.”

Interesting. Liberals tell us that the family is oppressive and therefore should not have any authority. Except, of course, the authority to murder new members of the family. I hadn't seen something that makes this (non) connection so explicit.

... if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person ...

So at what point does a "person" obtain or lose those characteristics which make them a "person?" And who decides?

My daughter was a person before God knew her in the womb, felt her kick, saw her on the ultrasound, and while connected to a respirator in the neonatal-intensive care unit.

Take the authors of the article. Would they agree that when their "costs (social, psychological, economic)" to society exceed their usefulness then society can simply do away with them? I'm not a philosopher but what is the difference?

Part of me appreciates such articles because they serve as a reductio to many arguments in support of abortion. Another part deplores them because they encourage murder.

---

The editor wrote:

The Journal does not specifically support substantive moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks, over others. It supports sound rational argument. Moreover, it supports freedom of ethical expression.

Ethical expression as opposed to, what, unethical expression? But one's distinction between ethical and unethical expression relies on some prior "moral view" or "moral outlook." So I guess the Journal does not "specifically support" particular views; it merely accepts some as true and operates from there.

More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.

Values such as murdering children! Also, keep in mind that the Journal does not "specifically support" "the very values of a liberal society" and is neutral as to whether "hostile, abusive, threatening" speech is less ethical than "proper academic discussion." Yeah, right.

I find it difficult to take someone seriously who expresses outrage while at the same time professing neutrality with regard to moral claims.

This is why I encourage all young people considering a career in philosophy just to stay away from the sub-field of ethics. It is hopelessly corrupt.

I wondered when I first saw this story whether the journal wd. have published a carefully reasoned argument that presented some shocking conclusion (which I leave to others' imaginations to conjure up) on a liberal-sensitive topic like race, using the same bland reasoning as it did here.

But then I realized: It appears to be a journal based in Britain. Presumably publishing some shocking racial conclusion would be illegal, so the journal editor could reject such a paper out of hand without providing any further justification. Look, Ma, no morals required.

Ideally, of course, an editor of a journal might have some morals and would reject _both_ papers (assuming that the shocking racial conclusion in question really was wicked) on moral grounds.

By the way, I do find it grimly amusing that the editor appears to think that the prior existence and prestige of such ethics luminaries as Peter Singer should mitigate the outrage. Or so I interpret him, anyway.

Ever notice how with these people, their response to "potential personhood" is to kill the potential person? On our side, the proper response to a person is love (see Karol Wojtyła's "personalistic norm", Love and Responsibility, Ignatius Press, 1993, page 41, if Wikipedia is to be believed).

Makes me sick, yet I'm not surprised. It's the logical result of the acceptance of abortion.

Particularly interesting is what sort of sacred taboos the left considers it within the bounds of civil discourse to violate, and which ones they are willing to suppress over threats of violence. Indeed, it's interesting to look at which threats of violence they are willing to countenance or at least empathize with. I'm referring, of course, to the fact that liberals everywhere wring their hands whenever some Muslim savage (or more usually, lots of them) start issuing death threats and burning things over somebody drawing a picture of Mohammed. That is an understandable response, you see. Mohammed's image is sacred.

But somebody writes that you have a positive duty to murder your disabled child rather than "burden the state," and some people act like it's worth getting physical about? How distressing! How unexpected! Don't you understand the core values of liberal society!?

Mohammed's image is sacred.

No it isn't.

Don't you understand the core values of liberal society!?

A core liberal value is quality of life, but legal infanticide degrades that quality in so many ways that the authors are corrupting that value instead of promoting it.

Could we limit "post-birth abortions" to people over thirty who work as "ethics" professors at liberal universities?

(Yes folks, that is sarcasm.)

This is why I encourage all young people considering a career in philosophy just to stay away from the sub-field of ethics. It is hopelessly corrupt.

Indeed, the entire field aims at nothing more than pushing the most radical of left-wing social policies. Ethics as understood by the great teachers of the West such as Plato, Aristotle, and St. Thomas Aquinas have nothing to do with it. Even the Mohammedans do not advocate anything as evil as infanticide, with the Koran explicitly forbidding it (killing newborn girls was a popular practice in the times of Muhammad).

The only way to stop the slaughter is for the law to declare that all newborns are really gay trangender Muslims wanting a philosophy appointment at a Christian college.

Has the time come to stop conniving?
Could a boycott be suggested?.
The entire field of medical ethics needs dissolving along with IQ research, dysgenic trends etc.

I want to agree with J.W. in that it's potentially beneficial (if sickening) to see them take their views to the logical conclusion. But part of me is afraid that they’ll succeed in persuading a lot of people.

I wondered when I first saw this story whether the journal wd. have published a carefully reasoned argument that presented some shocking conclusion (which I leave to others' imaginations to conjure up) on a liberal-sensitive topic like race, using the same bland reasoning as it did here.

Lydia, forget things that are illegal to write for a second. Would they have published an article calling for involuntary sterilization of those who are a burden on society (I mean without referencing P.C.-protected groups)? I think not, even though they cite the social, psychological and economic costs as part of their rationale. Sterilization addresses these “costs.” But they can’t bring themselves to argue for it because liberalism is about everyone being equally free/autonomous. Babies (unborn and infants) can’t be “autonomous” so they don’t count.

I'm marveling at the editor's ability to be a mealy-mouth one moment and then contradict himself the next.

The Journal does not specifically support substantive moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks, over others. (...) What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. (...) What the response to this article reveals, through the microscope of the web, is the deep disorder of the modern world. Not that people would give arguments in favour of infanticide, but the deep opposition that exists now to liberal values

Is the editor so clueless as to think that 'liberal values' aren't a moral outlook? Or was the post perhaps assembled together by a committee and credited to a single writer? Possibly the editor isn't actually representing the journal, and his objections are merely personal opinions unrelated to the Journal of Medical "Ethics".

BTW, the full text appears to be available here: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full

Would they have published an article calling for involuntary sterilization of those who are a burden on society (I mean without referencing P.C.-protected groups)?

They might. All the more so if it were restricted to people with a mental disability. There was a case recently where a judge in America actually ordered that a woman who suffered from some mental problem (bi-polar disorder, was it?) be sterilized. The judge also gave the parents authorization to trick her into an unwanted abortion. It was overturned on appeal. The woman was conscious and had her own ideas and everything. They couldn't even try to call her a "non-person" on the current definitions of not "valuing one's life" or whatever the nonsense is. She just had mental problems.

sounds like reductio ad absurdum, only no one got that which is just as scary. I thought the same thing after a judge in Canada gave a light sentence to a woman who killed her child citing the fact that Canada has no abortion laws means Canadians are fine with infanticide.

Lydia, I’m not saying that it couldn’t happen but I don’t see it happening in massive numbers like abortion. It would have just as much or more effect in eliminating “burdens” from society. Certainly we could have prevented many more than the 40-million “burdens” that we’ve prevented since 1973. Why not? I think it hasn’t happened because it violates a person’s “autonomy” as liberals understand it whereas abortion/infanticide doesn’t violate the rights of an “autonomous” person.

Just so I’m not misunderstood, my quotes above are intended as mocking quotes.

I think this makes sense. If abortion is permissible then infanticide and even more is permissible. You can read such stuff as an reductio ad absurdum of abortion.

You can read such stuff as an reductio ad absurdum of abortion.

Except that's not how they're reading it.

And here I was just thinking yesterday that tenure is a gravely defective tool nowadays in our workshop of employment options: Peter Singer should have been fired the first time he came out with his blighted, evil notions, and the notion of tenure should be modified to permit such things. Same with these authors. The fact is we ought to have good options available for showing these idjits how offensive to our culture that their ideas are (offensive to the truth too, but that's another issue), and keeping them employed at institutions mainly supported by government money ISN'T IT. We shouldn't be stuck paying money to these murderers* while they destroy our culture. 9 times out of 10, people who dream up this Sh*t haven't done an honest lick of work in at least 10 years. Put them back looking for a job, and they might discover at least one or two threads of connection with the real world. It't possible, anyway.

*I use the term "murderers" not in the legal sense, but in the moral sense. Christ called Satan, the father of lies, a "liar and a murderer from the beginning". These authors are morally complicit in the murders that they advocate. They are using horrendous lies to support inherently evil acts, and are by that route formally complicit in those acts.

And here I was just thinking yesterday that tenure is a gravely defective tool nowadays in our workshop of employment options: Peter Singer should have been fired the first time he came out with his blighted, evil notions, and the notion of tenure should be modified to permit such things. Same with these authors.

Ah, except that any university that would hire Singer would actually use the weakening of tenure to fire Christian conservatives while continuing to heap glory, laud, and honor on Singer and the authors of this article. And unfortunately, that's all too many universities.

In other words, you shouldn't think of arguments for infanticide as the kind of thing that people wait until they get tenure to make, because they are so controversial. Rather, these are the sorts of articles people write to get tenure. Pro-infanticide is pretty mainstream among secular bioethicists. Singerian personhood theory was accepted long ago. It's more plausible that tenure is protecting those few people who are _against_ infanticide and willing to argue for any pro-life position than people who are for it.

That's true NOW, Lydia. It wasn't true before the sexual revolution and the befuddled campuses of the 60's. There is a reason most of the revolution's initial impetus came from college campuses - it was fomented by professors who wanted a different world, a liberal, anything goes world where they didn't have to park morally degenerate theories at the door. THOSE professors didn't rock the boat before they had tenure. Or, if they did, then the university officials were even bigger idiots than I thought.

We aren't going to turn the culture around by pushing for the 40 or 50 conservative professors in the country keeping their jobs on account of tenure. In today's culture, they couldn't possibly have gotten their jobs and their tenure without facing intense liberal pressure and beating it - usually by being twice as knowledgeable about their field as the liberal aspirants.

Reconfiguring what tenure means won't do a thing on its own. Without administrators actually having a reason to want to get rid of the moral midgets, there won't be any point. But that's a given anyway. We need changes all around the circle of academia, not just in tenure. I am just saying that the IDEA of tenure protecting these professors' jobs in spite of such evil articles is not in keeping with the rationale of tenure.

I'm afraid that just meets with a shrug from me, though, Tony. Since, as I think we're agreed, the whole field of bioethics is now on secular campuses in a state of "calling evil good" (and calling good evil, for that matter) reconfiguring the meaning of tenure in the secular universities can only do harm. If that could ever have helped, it's too late long ago.

Now, for colleges that still have a real Christian culture and would actually monitor this kind of thing, I do support their having some pretty strong limits on tenure. Most of them do. Those limits can be abused of course (and unfortunately sometimes are) for strange or trivial in-group fights or fads, and aren't used where they should be (Calvin College should have had a clause long ago allowing them to fire professors for advocating homosexual "marriage," but instead such professors are entrenched.) But advocacy of infanticide would certainly be a case where Christian colleges' limits on the power of tenure could and should be justly used, and actually might be.

Ah, except that any university that would hire Singer would actually use the weakening of tenure to fire Christian conservatives while continuing to heap glory, laud, and honor on Singer and the authors of this article. And unfortunately, that's all too many universities.

The easiest solution to this is to have the state legislature simply pass a law firing the entire faculty of the department that does such a thing and liquidate the department's assets at public auction. Alternatively, they could empower the governor to do the same thing. I'm inclined to say that given how much of the academy outside of Science and Engineering has become a cesspool that there needs to be a culling for its own sake.

Mike, I agree, but it's probably a subject for another thread. The combination of negative drain on an economy of churning out English, History, Art, and Sociology majors who cannot use their majors for anything worthwhile, and the affirmative evils of Bioethics, Philosophy and such departments poisoning the minds of everyone on campus, suggests that we ought to take a hard look at being ready to pump state money into these institutions the way we do. For example, if we were to privatize all colleges, would that be good or not? Big topic.

I'm not sure privatization is so much the immediate need as is simply making it clear that departments which dabble in that nonsense will be summarily abolished.

I think holding the department responsible has its problems. There could well be people in the department who voted against hiring someone like this in the first place or voted against his tenure. We need to watch it with a "burn it all down" approach. You're definitely going to kill the good with the bad. Remember Christ's parable of the wheat and the tares. Moreover, departments usually have professional associations behind them that pretend, and force the department to pretend, to be "unbiased." In practice this often means only "unbiased against liberal-accepted views," but the fact remains that the department might well have limited resources for getting rid of somebody like this themselves.

I'm afraid the rot goes so deep that y'all aren't going to find any very useful top-down solutions, short of starting or supporting schools that have explicitly Christian-humanist commitments.

Administrators do have a certain amount of case-by-case power, and I suppose that a dean or provost might be able to prevent someone with such publications from being hired or getting tenure, while facing few negative consequences himself.

The really bitter irony, however, is that administrators, who might be the ones most able to do something, are among the worst offenders. This is because bioethics is seen as a field of the future and a field that will bring money _into_ the university. Usually philosophy departments are at a disadvantage vis a vis science departments because they don't bring in big flashy government grants. Bioethics has a potential for this, so often presidents and administrators will actually pressure a philosophy department to do _more_ with bioethics than the department would otherwise be inclined to do. Also, administrators tend to be impatient of pure philosophy because it seems too old-fashioned and ivory-towered. Bioethics sounds "relevant," so they favor that over, say, logic and epistemology.

I've been following this debate a bit through the internet, and on the website of the Oxford Uehiro Center for Practical Ethics where one of the authors is a fellow, there have been various responses by guest authors published.
I found this analysis below by Charles Camosy from Fordham University rather well argued.
There are also other responses by philosophers trying to uphold some important distinction, but those arguments are rather weak, arguing by "Ethical vision beyond explicit arguments" and citing Dostoevsky in one case, and by the "Universal human emotion of caring for its offspring" in the other case. The latter argument concludes "The norm we have erected, based on the instinct shared by the majority of us, means we condemn such mothers if they seriously want to kill their babies. Perhaps if the majority of us no longer wanted our children, we would abandon the norm. But that’s not how things are."

But anyways, here is the good argument for a Christian sanctity of life view:

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/03/concern-for-our-vulnerable-prenatal-and-neonatal-children-a-brief-reply-to-giubilini-and-minerva/

Bruce, it is worth remembering that a number of US states did have forced sterilization for a time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#United_States

Lydia,

That's a good point and one of the reasons why I support a revision to the non-profit corporation tax status that would eliminate groups like political activists and professional associations from the 501(c) system. Let those associations pay 35% to Uncle Sam ;)

Moreover, departments usually have professional associations behind them that pretend, and force the department to pretend, to be "unbiased."

These professional associations can only have the degree of power the departments are willing to grant them. You can tell the associations to go hang, and there isn't really much they can do about it. This is even more true if the professors primary job is that of teaching the undergrads in the college, rather than publishing. Focus the professors on what they were really hired to do to begin with, and the outside entanglements become more clear for what they typically are: distractions from the business of educating the student.

Except that's not how they're reading it.

Still, I think this is a positive development. Every sane person can now clearly see the rotten fruit that grows from the principles of the pro-death-side. Without having read the paper myself, the basic premise seems to me valid: if abortion is ok, murder is ok. Therefore everyone who supports abortion supports murder. And thats by their own admission! What better political ammunition can you get?

These professional associations can only have the degree of power the departments are willing to grant them. You can tell the associations to go hang, and there isn't really much they can do about it. This is even more true if the professors primary job is that of teaching the undergrads in the college, rather than publishing.

I'm afraid that's not true. For example, if the department is censured as having "discriminated on the basis of ideology," their ads for future teachers can receive a mark of censure or, I would guess, for some professional associations, even be blocked. This will affect the quality of candidates available for future teaching jobs. Similarly, if departments are downgraded by rankings, prestige-hungry administrators may well cut all funding for replacing faculty members who, say, die or leave. Which makes it hard to keep the classes taught.

This doesn't mean that I wouldn't vote against the tenure or hiring of an infanticide advocate were I in such a department. I certainly would. It does mean that you kind of have to know the inside baseball to know all the ways in which pressure can be brought to bear. It's pretty convoluted.

Right, Lydia, I think that's true. But I do think those examples are, again, examples of letting the association control you in ways that you can simply say "I am not going to live under that restrictive thumb". A department can go outside the association's specific publication to advertise. In virtually every field, there is more than one periodical that publishes, not all of them directly controlled by the association. And if your department STILL cannot get ads out, then you can go to journals of related fields, and you can start your own, and so on. If all else fails, START A NEW ASSOCIATION. This is exactly the reason you get new groups starting up.

Additionally, you can fight fire with fire and sometimes win. I recall that some years ago one of the 6 regional school accreditation agencies was threatening to put a school on probation for being accredited because they weren't being politically correct - that is, they didn't have programs and policies in place to meet the stated standard, to foster and promote PC, and to protect victim classes. The school took issue with the standard itself, mounted a public campaign, argued against the underlying assumptions and theories of that standard, and gathered some allies. The accreditation agency not only backed down on the threat, they re-wrote the standard to admit of programs that could not comply with such standards in principle.

Granted, that all takes a lot of effort and uses up a lot of resources. You can't expect to deal with every disagreement that way. But the above - going outside of the Association to hire, start a new association, fight with a direct battle - once or twice, and opponents will think twice before taking you on directly. You create some operating space.

You write of "the journal's editor -- who belongs behind bars for publishing this criminal incitement to murder." Is this hyperbole, or are you serious? If the latter, then would you care to elaborate?

Maybe I'm just dense, or maybe I am morally deficient, but I don't get it.

What would Geert Wilders think of your comment? What would a general staff preparing hypothetical plans to kill thousands of innocents think of it? (Or are such questions irrelevant in your view?)

Thank goodness nobody ever learns anything from arguments with false conclusions!