Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Newborn babies: not persons, and not fully human – P. Z. Myers

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Please respond by 12:01 a.m. on Friday, 21 January 2011 (GMT)

P. Z. Myers is one of the 25 most influential living atheists. He is also on record as saying that he doesn’t believe that newborn babies are fully human, and he makes it clear that he doesn’t regard them as persons, either. Almost no-one noticed when P. Z. Myers made these utterances, because they were made in a comment on one of his recent posts. (See here for P.Z. Myers’ post, here for one reader’s comment and here for P. Z. Myers’ reply, in which he makes his own views plain.) So, what exactly did P. Z. say? In response to a reader who claimed that there is one very easily defined line between personhood and non-personhood – namely, birth – P. Z. Myers replied:

Nope, birth is also arbitrary, and it has not been even a cultural universal that newborns are regarded as fully human.

I’ve had a few. They weren’t.

Let me state at the outset that I have no doubt that P. Z. Myers is a good father; but that is not the issue here. His views on newborn babies are the issue.

For the benefit of readers, here is a list of the 25 most influential living atheists:

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Hawking, Steven Pinker, Michael Shermer, Peter Singer, Steven Weinberg, Paul Kurtz, Lawrence Krauss, Edward O. Wilson, P. Z. Myers, James Randi, Jennifer Michael Hecht, Peter Atkins, John Brockman, Philip Pullman, Barbara Forrest, David Sloan Wilson, Ray Kurzweil, William B. (“Will”) Provine, Kai Nielsen, Susan Blackmore and Richard Carrier.

The purpose of my post today is to ask each of the 25 most influential living atheists five simple questions:

(a) Do you believe that a newborn baby is fully human? Yes/No (please see Question 1 below if you find it difficult to give a clear answer to this question).

(b) Do you believe that a newborn baby is a person? Yes/No (please see Questions 1 and 2 below if you find it difficult to give a clear answer to this question).

(c) Do you believe that a newborn baby has a right to life? Yes/No (please see Questions 1 and 3 below if you find it difficult to give a clear answer to this question).

(d) Do you believe that every human person has a duty towards newborn babies, to refrain from killing them? Yes/No (please see Questions 1, 4, 5 and 6 below if you find it difficult to give a clear answer to this question).

(e) Do you believe that killing a newborn baby is just as wrong as killing an adult? Yes/No (please see Questions 1 and 7 below if you find it difficult to give a clear answer to this question).

I’m asking these questions, because I think the world has a right to know how the 25 most influential living atheists view newborn babies. The moral status of newborn babies is an ethical issue of vital importance, and I’d like to know what the world’s leading atheists think about this subject. Because I’m a generous person, I’m giving them four days to answer my five simple questions. The countdown ends at 12:01 a.m. (one minute past midnight) on Friday, 21 January, 2011, Greenwich Mean Time (UTC). I think that’s quite enough time for the word to get around, and for people to respond.

And in case some of these atheists object that they’re too busy to respond, let me state that I will happily accept, in good faith, responses written on their behalf by friends, acquaintances, personal assistants or people who have read their books and can quote relevant passages, complete with publication details and page numbers. If someone responding on behalf of an influential atheist wishes to preserve his/her anonymity, he/she is free to use a pseudonym. Please note, however, that I will not be imputing views to influential atheists on the basis of anonymous responses. That would be irresponsible.

To respond to my five questions, all you need to do is write a brief comment at the end of this post – for example:
(a) Yes. (b) No. (c) No. (d) No. (e) No.
Note: If you are replying on behalf of an influential atheist, please list his/her name, your name (if you are willing to give it) and your connection with the atheist in question.

Here are my answers to some questions which I anticipate that people will ask about my quiz:

Question 1. How do you define “fully human,” “person,” “right to life” and “wrong”? I don’t. We’re all grown-ups here. I’m quite happy to let you use your own definitions.

Question 2. What if I believe that a newborn baby is neither clearly a person nor clearly a non-person, but somewhere in between? In that case, please answer “Gray” to question (b) above.

Question 3. What if I believe that talk of “rights” is meaningless nonsense, for babies and adults alike? In that case, please answer “No, and I don’t believe adults do either” to question (c) above.

Question 4. What if I believe that our duties towards babies and adults alike are defined by the society we happen to live in? In that case, please answer “No” to question (d) above. Obviously if you believe that, then you believe that people living in a society which tolerates infanticide don’t have a duty towards newborn babies, to refrain from killing them.

Question 5. What if I believe that we have a duty to refrain from killing newborn babies, not because we have a duty towards the babies as such, but because it would cause great anguish to their parents if they were killed? In that case, please answer “No” to question (d) above. I’m asking you whether you believe we have a duty towards the babies, to refrain from killing them. I’m not asking about duties towards their parents.

Question 6. What if I believe that we normally have a duty towards newborn babies, to refrain from killing them, but that it may be OK in exceptional circumstances – e.g. if the baby is suffering excruciating pain, or is very severely deformed? In that case, please answer “Yes (qualified)” to question (d) above.

Question 7. What if I believe that killing a newborn baby is a terrible, terrible thing, but that killing an adult is even worse? In that case, please answer “No” to question (e) above.

Question 8. Don’t you know that there is very little myelin in a newborn baby’s brain? Don’t you know that a newborn baby lacks an autobiographical memory, a concept of self and a theory of mind? Sure I do. You’re not telling me anything new; I didn’t come down in the last shower. All I want is an answer to the five questions I listed above, from the 25 most influential living atheists.

Question 9. What is the relevance of all this to Intelligent Design? Simple. Many of these influential atheists are on the record as saying that we can go on behaving ethically, even if there is no Designer of life and the cosmos. Fine. Here’s a splendid test case: the moral status of newborn babies, and our obligations towards them. I’d like to see how they answer my questionnaire, and I can assure these atheists that a lot of people will be watching.

Question 10. What if I refuse to answer your questionnaire? Fine. If you do not respond, and if no-one responds on your behalf, I shall assume by default that your responses are: (a) Yes. (b) No. (c) No. (d) No. (e) No. Why? Because that’s about the most consistent set of responses that I can conceive of an atheist making, if he/she were also a materialist. Please note that I said “assume.” I did not say that I would impute those views to influential atheists who choose not to respond. There’s a very big difference.

Question 11. Are you seriously suggesting that a newborn baby has the same rights as an adult? What about the right to drive or vote? Reply: in this questionnaire, you are being asked about one right only: the right to life. The question I’m asking is: do you believe that a newborn human baby has a right to life or not? It is perfectly obvious that newborn babies don’t have the right to drive, which isn’t a natural human right in any case.

Question 12. Are you implying that people who don’t believe newborn babies are persons support infanticide? No. Let me be quite clear about that. I simply want to know what the world’s most influential atheists think about the moral status of newborn babies.

Finally, let me remind readers that this post is about newborn babies. It is not about the morality of abortion, or about the moral status of an embryo or fetus. I would like to ask readers to keep their comments to the point.

UPDATE: THREE of the 25 most influential living atheists (Professor Peter Atkins, Dr. Richard Carrier and Dr. Michael Shermer) have already responded to my quiz (see comments 27, 29 and 33 below, respectively). I would like to thank them all for their prompt and courteous responses. ONE atheist (James Randi) has refused to respond (see comment 28 below). At least he answered my email, so I’ll give him credit for that.

I have also added the responses that I believe Professor Peter Singer and Professor Steven Pinker would give, on the basis of their published writings, from which I quote (see comments 64 and 65 below).

Comments
Roxolan, if you don't mind me asking, how do you justify being a materialist when materialism has been falsified by the fact that all material (time-space matter-energy) was brought into being at the Big Bang. Surely having no 'material' to work with to explain the origin of everything we see around us should present more than a minor problem for you?!? "The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude." Prof. Henry F. Schaefer - The Creation Of The Universe (Kalam Cosmological Argument)- Lee Strobel - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3993987/ Hugh Ross PhD. - Evidence For The Transcendent Origin Of The Universe - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347185 What Contemporary Physics and Philosophy Tell Us About Nature and God - Fr. Spitzer & Dr. Bruce Gordon (Dr. Gordon speaks for the last 25 minutes) - video http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/32512834 Formal Proof For The Transcendent Origin Of the Universe - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4170233 "The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever—indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science." - William Lane Craig http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6115 Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete - Borde-Guth-Vilenkin - 2003 Excerpt: inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012 "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Alexander Vilenkin - Many Worlds In One - Pg. 176 "The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation is impossible without a beginning." Alexander Vilenkin - from pg. 35 'New Proofs for the Existence of God' by Robert J. Spitzer (of note: A elegant thought experiment of a space traveler traveling to another galaxy, that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, used to illustrate the validity of the proof, is on pg. 35 of the book as well.) Genesis 1:1-3 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. On a bit more technical side, materialism is also falsified by the failure of local realism to explain quantum entanglement: The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 The falsification for local realism (materialism) was recently greatly strengthened: Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism - November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html This following study adds to Alain Aspect's work in Quantum Mechanics and solidly refutes the 'hidden variable' argument that has been used by materialists to try to get around the Theistic implications of the instantaneous 'spooky action at a distance' found in quantum mechanics. Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htmbornagain77
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
Sadly your argument doesn't make any sense. What you are setting up is called a "false dichotomy". The fact is that value of various organisms could be rated on so many different scales as to fully illustrate the meaning of "it depends" and "my opinion". But one thing is outstandingly clear and that is in terms of human scope a cell < fetus < baby < child < adult in terms of full scope of what it means to be human. I imagine you'll just interpret that as "SOMG BABY KILLA"Fly Germ
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
@vjtorley 52: thank you for answering. That does make your position clearer, and more reasonable than "save the one who's got the longer life expectancy". (I still disagree with it, but I'm an atheist and a materialist so no surprise there.)Roxolan
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
Roxolan (#41) Thank you for your question. I would save the baby, in the case you propose. The twenty-year-old (nationality is not relevant here) has already lived a quarter of his/her life. During that time, he/she has had time to exercise his/her reason on abstract issues (e.g. right and wrong), acquire the moral virtues, reflect on the meaning of his/her existence, and mentally prepare for death - an event which everyone should be mentally ready to face at short notice. The baby, by contrast, has only just begun to live, having spent only nine months living in the womb. In such a case, I think the choice about whom to save should be obvious.vjtorley
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
@Clive Hayden #46: I think I was very explicit in what I was trying to illustrate (or rather, to figure out about vjtorley), and you're speaking complete nonsense.Roxolan
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
markf I've just had a look at your response. Thank you for putting my questionnaire on your blog. Just a few quick comments for now. When I said that I would assume that a logically consistent atheist would answer yes, no, no, no, no, I added the qualification: if he/she were also a materialist. That makes a difference. The vital question, as I shall make clear in a subsequent blog, is: what is it about human beings that makes them valuable? There are a few atheists who can correctly answer this question. But being a materialist hinders your capacity to grasp the answer. Professor Peter Singer is an example of someone I would regard as a consistent materialist. I am pleasantly surprised to find that none of the respondents to date has given the answers that he would give. As regards m's response: I found it rather shallow. Interestingly, m questions whether newborn babies are sentient. Personally, it wouldn't worry me one iota if they weren't. Their moral status remains unaffected, as I'll explain in a subsequent post. I note that m denies that anyone has an intrinsic right to life, but also seems to despise politicians who deny healthcare to children. Go figure. In my quiz, I asked about killing, not about withholding money. M evidently fails to grasp the distinction between positive and negative duties. For instance, how much of a duty do I have to assist people in need, in distant countries? That's a difficult question, and I don't know the answer. I do however know this: I do have a duty not to kill people with my bare hands. As for my last question: it is obvious that m has no conception of human history. For most of human history, people haven't had the luxury of owning houses with attics. Nor have they had the time to postulate totally contrived ethical dilemmas about noisy infants hiding in attics. As for the prevalence of infanticide in other cultures: what about the Jews, 3,000 years ago? They weren't affluent, but they managed to put a stop to the barbarous practice of infanticide. Later on, Christians accomplished the same thing in the Roman world and Muslims in the Arab world. The only cultures which tolerate infanticide today on a wide scale - India and China - are precisely those which don't value women. So much for me having "no concept of human history." If you're in a war or a famine, you feed your children the best you can. Some might starve, but you try to keep them alive to the best of your ability. That's altogether different from killing them.vjtorley
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
vjtorley - I would allow the worthy human to die, unless he/she were a member of my family, in which case I’d put my family first. A baby has its whole life in front of it. Out of interest, what do you believe gives value to human life? Your preference here suggests that you don't think it's contingent on our experiences (some who won't live beyond a handful of summers, for example, might enjoy more pleasure than a loveless man who stumbles to 100). But if all human life is inherently of equal value what is it that makes the measure of one's lifespan relevant?BenSix
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
Being an educator I've similarly, in the past, exposed students of mine to a variant of the 'lifeboat dilemma'. Fascinating replies and discussions I've had with students (of all ages), but on one occasion a reply to who you would choose was given immediately before even the 'contestants' were revealed: "The good-looking one!" Hmm!AussieID
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
PS: of course, I am not talking about censorship or persecution, but of the duty of leadership to stand up and refuse assent to evil and amorality, warning the community of the consequences, with such historical precedents as are relevant. I am, however, saying that those who act on amorality and carry out evil deeds in violation of law should face exemplary punishment after fair and prompt trial; e.g. what should have been done in the infamous Loeb-Leopold nihilist murder case defended by Mr Darrow. This, in defense of the civil peace of justice.kairosfocus
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
F/N: I should note in respect of the typical situation ethics dilemmas above and in m's remarks elsewhere, that the [argued] lesser of evils is still an evil. It may arguably be the least worst possible option, or an excusable or defensible option -- such as killing an attacker in defence of his intended victims, but that does not transmute it into a good; nor does it undermine the humanity of a newborn, or the rights that person should have. This ESPECIALLY is vital in dealing with the weak, of which a newborn infant is a capital example. The erosion of the sacred value of any person's life, is historically -- yes, m, historically -- the prelude to devaluation of all human life. In particular, there is blood-drenched all too recent history to make us very wary of the slippery slope:
abortion --> infanticide --> euthanasia and genocide
And, there is long and bloody history to warn civilisations off allowing worldviews that have in them no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT from becoming dominant in elite circles or the general population. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
Roxolan, Here's another few dilemmas. There are two footballs, you get to choose which one will be thrown and which one will be kicked towards the tire hanging on a rope from a tree in the backyard, how do you choose? Or here's another one, there are two ways to sit on the floor, legs crossed or not crossed, how do you sit? Or how about this one, there are two dishes in the sink, do you wash them both before you put them in the dishwasher, or not? If your question, directed towards vjtorley about the Japanese and the Swazi, is trying to illustrate that there is no ultimate morality, then your question won't even be a moral dilemma, you may as well replace it with one of my questions above.Clive Hayden
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
markf,
vj – there are a couple of responses on my blog from people who are not permitted to comment on UD. I would particularly draw your attention to m’s response (I don’t know if he/she is an atheist).
I read it, and I don't know if he/she is even a person.Clive Hayden
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
As to this, “On the other hand, if a ship (such as the Titanic) had just capsized, and if I were in a lifeboat picking up survivors, and I could only take one more, then I would choose to save a baby over a talented artist, even if that artist were Leonardo da Vinci." But how many would be willing to get out of the lifeboat so that another might live?bornagain77
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
--VJ: "On the other hand, if a ship (such as the Titanic) had just capsized, and if I were in a lifeboat picking up survivors, and I could only take one more, then I would choose to save a baby over a talented artist, even if that artist were Leonardo da Vinci. I would therefore save the baby and allow the artist to die. And my judgment would not change if the artist were also a great humanitarian, like Mohandas K. Gandhi." VJ, I take your point about the difference between picking up someone in the boat versus choosing to throw someone overboard. Given that assumption, I think I would make the same choice.StephenB
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
vj - there are a couple of responses on my blog from people who are not permitted to comment on UD. I would particularly draw your attention to m's response (I don't know if he/she is an atheist).markf
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
As you're probably aware, PZ has posted a response on his blog. The tl-dr version is "gray". @vjtorley #31: as food for thought, here's another dilemma. There are two people, and you get to choose which one will be saved and which one will die (not choosing means both die). You have the following information: - You don't know any of them personally. - One is a twenty-year old Japanese. - The other is a newborn from Swaziland. - You will not get to meet the survivor. According to #31, you'd rather save a baby than an adult because "a baby has its whole life in front of it". But in this case, as you may know, the odds are very high that the Japanese has much more life in front of him than the Swazi. Do you stand by your previous reasoning and save the Japanese? Or is there in fact some other reason that makes you prefer babies?Roxolan
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
answers from the far side... (a) Do you believe that a newborn baby is fully human? A newborn baby human is fully human but a newborn baby dog is not fully human. :) (b) Do you believe that a newborn baby is a person? A newborn baby human is fully human but a newborn baby dog is not a person. :) (c) Do you believe that a newborn baby has a right to life? A newborn baby human has a right to life but a newborn baby calf can be veal so it has a right to be a meal. :) (d) Do you believe that every human person has a duty towards newborn babies, to refrain from killing them? Some babies are very tender and tasty. For example chimps love to eat monkey babies. (e) Do you believe that killing a newborn baby is just as wrong as killing an adult? It depends on the animal.Joseph
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
markf (#35): Thank you for giving me the idea of contacting the 25 most influential living atheists individually. I'll probably write a short follow-up post, discussing the results.vjtorley
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT
DrBot (#36): In answer to your question: if I were out in the seas, in a boat, and I had the opportunity to save just ONE person out of a group of seven drowning people of identical age and gender, about whom I knew nothing except their respective religions (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, agnostic and atheist), then I'd be inclined to simply save the drowning person who happened to be nearest to my rescue boat. I certainly wouldn't save the Christian first. He/She should be able to face death with serenity, if he/she really believes what his/her faith teaches. I don't think it would be right in a situation like this to discriminate between people on the basis of their creed.vjtorley
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT
When I was in Grade 7 (I think), in 1972, my English teacher posed a similar dilemma, relating to a sinking lifeboat. On the lifeboat there’s a five-year-old child and a very talented artist. Whom would you save? I was shocked when she suggested that it might be moral to save the artist, because he had a deeper appreciation of life. That kind of reasoning smelt bad to me, and it still does.
Facinating - Context and family bonds can have deep effects on how we reason about priorities but so do cultural perceptions. Let me pose another provocative question if I may! If the choice (which individual to kill/allow to die) was between a christian, muslim, jew, hindu, Sikh, agnostic or atheist (all of equal age and gender) - and apart from their belief (or lack thereof!) you knew no other details about their character - whom would you select? Is the best option just to pick a name from a hat?DrBot
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT
vj I apologise. I never thought you would get such a high response rate. Although I think the e-mail was essential. Having gathered this data (the usual pattern seems to be yes, yes, yes, yes and then some havering over the last one) what do you plan to do with it?markf
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PDT
Hi StephenB, I totally agree with you that it would be immoral to forcibly throw someone off a lifeboat. The direct killing of an innocent human being is wrong. On the other hand, if a ship (such as the Titanic) had just capsized, and if I were in a lifeboat picking up survivors, and I could only take one more, then I would choose to save a baby over a talented artist, even if that artist were Leonardo da Vinci. I would therefore save the baby and allow the artist to die. And my judgment would not change if the artist were also a great humanitarian, like Mohandas K. Gandhi.vjtorley
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT
Response from Dr. Michael Shermer (first paragraph): I sent Bill [Dembski] my answers last night. They are Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes! The justification for all the answers is my book, The Science of Good and Evil.vjtorley
January 18, 2011
January
01
Jan
18
18
2011
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT
1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Yes 4. Yes 5. Yes Justification for all answers may be found in my book The Science of Good and Evil (Henry Holt/Times Books, 2003)michaelshermer
January 17, 2011
January
01
Jan
17
17
2011
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT
If a six-week old male fetus is declared to be not fully human on the grounds that he is not a “fully developed human,” then a new-born baby, or, for that matter, a twelve-year-old boy who has not yet reached puberty must be placed in the same category. Obviously, if full development is the standard for full humanity, then all those who have not reached maturity are not fully human. Thus, such a standard cannot suffice as a meaningful or logical moral benchmark. A more meaningful definition of fully human would be simply anyone who is now part of the human family by virtue of having been conceived as human. One does not develop into a human being; one develops as a human being. The aforementioned point is not unrelated to the infamous life boat “dilemma,” which, to me, is little more than a utilitarian trick calculated to blur the distinction between a moral action and one which appears to serve the greatest number. Once the utilitarian forces his listener “to choose” who gets to live and who gets to die, he has also forced the listener to admit, tacitly, that one human being can be “worth more” than another human being and, therefore, to admit that there is no such thing as “inherent” dignity. In my judgment, there can only be one moral answer to this so-called dilemma. Simply refuse to grant the premise that one human being can be worth more than another and refuse to make the choice. If the group does, indeed, choose to throw any one person overboard for any reason, I claim they have committed a collective act of murder. The only person who can morally make such a choice is the individual who volunteers to give his life freely for the sake of the others. Otherwise, they hang together and accept their fate together.StephenB
January 17, 2011
January
01
Jan
17
17
2011
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
DrBot: Here's my answer to the ethical dilemma you posed:
If you faced an unavoidable choice between allowing a baby to die or allowing a worthy human to die (with failing to choose resulting in the death of both) which would you choose and why.
I would allow the worthy human to die, unless he/she were a member of my family, in which case I'd put my family first. A baby has its whole life in front of it. When I was in Grade 7 (I think), in 1972, my English teacher posed a similar dilemma, relating to a sinking lifeboat. On the lifeboat there's a five-year-old child and a very talented artist. Whom would you save? I was shocked when she suggested that it might be moral to save the artist, because he had a deeper appreciation of life. That kind of reasoning smelt bad to me, and it still does. Curiously, there's one response that I haven't received yet to question (e) in my short quiz, but it would have been a very common response forty years ago. Most people would have said back then that they believed that killing a baby is worse than killing an adult. How far we've fallen...vjtorley
January 17, 2011
January
01
Jan
17
17
2011
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
Dr. Carriers response is certainly interesting. Just to play devils advocate a moment - his elucidation on the final question raises another interesting (and classic) philosophical dilema relating to choice and context - Anyone care to answer this question: If you faced an unavoidable choice between allowing a baby to die or allowing a worthy human to die (with failing to choose resulting in the death of both) which would you choose and why. For me, if the baby was mine I would (like any parent) choose the baby. Under other circumstances I might choose the human - but I couldn't possibly know until I was forced to make the choice. What I do know is that I would find it hard to live with myself in either case.DrBot
January 17, 2011
January
01
Jan
17
17
2011
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
Response from Dr. Richard Carrier (unedited): On Jan 17, 2011, at 8:46 AM, Vincent Torley wrote: > Dear Dr. Carrier, > > My name is Vincent Torley (Web page: http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/index.html) and I am inviting you, as one of the 25 most influential living atheists, to take part in a very short ethics quiz. Details may be found on this Web page: > > https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/newborn-babies-not-persons-and-not-fully-human-p-z-myers/ > > I would be very grateful if you would respond to the quiz, either directly or indirectly. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to read this email. No problem. You may publish my replies, in whole (please do not edit anything out), and with attribution (and when you do, please send me the URL and I'll blog a link to it): -- (a) Do you believe that a newborn baby is fully human? Answer: Yes. In my philosophy, language and how we use it is of paramount importance (Sense and Goodness without God, pp. 27-48). Hence here, as anywhere, the answer would depend on the linguistic context, i.e. what you contextually mean by "human." If by "fully human" you mean "member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens with a full corresponding complement of chromosomal DNA" then the answer is obviously "yes." But then you are limited only to the inferences you can draw from that definition. For instance, even a skill cell or a corpse is fully human by that definition, so if now you want to exclude corpses and dandruff, you have to alter the definition, perhaps by specifying "a living organism" instead of just "a member." Thus it all depends on what you are talking about. I think the intent of your question is to identify where the line is drawn between "yes" and "no." In what sense is a newborn baby not fully human? There is only one general sense I can think of: not developed to full and normal human potential. So if by "fully human" you just mean "fully developed human" then the answer to question (a) is obviously, and uncontroversially, "no." Within that general sense is the more specific aspect of such development: mental development. And again babies are not fully developed in that sense, either, but that is relevant only if you limit "fully human" to mean only "fully developed human," which seems to me an odd way to speak. Why not just say "fully developed human" and avoid the ambiguity? Since I abhor needless ambiguities, I would never say "babies are not fully human" because that sentence is too obscure to be understood. I would instead say "babies are not fully developed humans." I thus in practice define "fully human" as "a living organism of the species Homo sapiens sapiens with a full corresponding complement of chromosomal DNA." So by that definition my answer to question (a) is "Yes." (b) Do you believe that a newborn baby is a person? Answer: Yes. I do not believe babies are fully developed persons. But I do believe they are persons. In fact, they become persons before birth, specifically at the formation and activation of their cerebral cortex (around the start of the third trimester, although the exact timing will differ in each case). I therefore oppose elective third trimester abortion as being identical to infanticide (see the Carrier-Roth Debate: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion). But specifically in respect to defining a baby as a person, babies have all the attributes of personhood. They only possess them in lesser degree than older children, who in turn possess them in lesser degree than adults (Sense and Goodness without God, pp. 329-30). Therefore my answer to question (b) is "yes." (c) Do you believe that a newborn baby has a right to life? Answer: Yes. In fact I believe even an unborn baby in the third trimester has a right to life (and this fact was even recognized by the Roe v. Wade decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, as anyone who actually reads that decision will learn). Rights are creations of human law, and thus only exist insofar as we choose to create and enforce them. But inalienable human rights consist of those rights necessary for persons to have the opportunity to pursue their own happiness, and are therefore inalienable insofar as you believe government should exist for the purpose of securing human happiness (Sense and Goodness without God, pp. 389-93). Babies (like all children) have debilitating limitations on their capacity to pursue their own happiness which places necessary limits on their rights (which is why we don't give babies the right to vote or join the army or leave home and rent an apartment). But for all those limitations, not among them is any total inability to experience happiness, to think and learn, and to develop their existing personality. Therefore their liberty to experience happiness, to think and learn, and to develop their existing personality is an inalienable right. Unless, of course, you do not believe human happiness is the paramount aim of individuals and their societies, but then if you believe that, you aren't a humanist. I am (Sense and Goodness without God, p. 293). Therefore my answer to question (c) is "yes." (d) Do you believe that every human person has a duty towards newborn babies, to refrain from killing them? Answer: Yes. This is not always the case. If killing a baby is actually necessary to save the life of an adult, then we have exactly the opposite duty: to kill the baby. But assuming the question is intended for normal circumstances, then the answer to question (d) is "yes." I am also assuming this question is intended with respect to moral duty and not legal duty. Obviously, as a matter of current law, we have a duty to refrain from the unnecessary killing babies, as otherwise we'd be tried as criminals. But I assume you mean to ask what the law should be (and not merely what it is), or how we should behave regardless of what laws are in place. I do not normally frame morality in terms of duties, however, but virtues. Those virtues then entail duties (Sense and Goodness without God, pp. 313-24, 331-35). But even though the motive for submitting to a duty not to kill is the desire to be the sort of person who would not so kill, because being that sort of person is quantitatively and qualitatively necessary to maximize your own personal opportunities for happiness, that just explains why the duty obtains. Therefore my answer to question (d) is still "yes." (e) Do you believe that killing a newborn baby is just as wrong as killing an adult? Answer: No. All human beings (and in fact all things, living and nonliving) reside on a scale of worth. For example, a serial killer's life is worth less than a virtuous doctor's life, such that if we were compelled to choose to save only one of them, the choice obviously resolves in favor of the doctor and not the killer (Sense and Goodness without God, pp. 328-31). Just as different adults have different value, killing different adults does different degrees of harm. Which is why we feel more sympathy for a vigilante who kills a serial killer than for a serial killer who kills a vigilante. The one murder is rightly perceived as less wrong than the other, yet we still do regard both as wrong. Which is why we outlaw vigilanteism and jail vigilantes when we catch them, and why we normally don't aid and abet them regardless of whatever laws. Accordingly, the value of a given baby (e.g. one that is soon to die anyway) may be less than a given adult (e.g. a doctor who will go on to save many more lives), and therefore less harm is done by killing the one than by killing the other. And thus although it's still wrong in either case, it is less wrong in the one case than in the other. And in most cases this will be so: an adult of known potential and fully developed personhood will normally be of greater value than a baby, whose potential is wholly unknown and whose personhood is not fully developed. Therefore killing a baby will usually be less wrong than killing an adult. But still wrong. And sometimes the reverse will be the case, e.g. if faced with a choice to save a baby or a serial killer, killing the baby would in that case would be far more wrong. But that is not usually the case. And even when it isn't the case, killing babies can still be wrong, regardless of whether it is less so than killing an adult. Therefore my answer to question (e) is "no." -- Richard C. Carrier, Ph.D. http://www.richardcarrier.infovjtorley
January 17, 2011
January
01
Jan
17
17
2011
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
Response from James Randi: I will not respond to such a heavily biased set of questions, and I could not do so without providing extensive explanations for my answers. The "quiz" is short, but the answers would be far too involved and lengthy. James Randi.vjtorley
January 17, 2011
January
01
Jan
17
17
2011
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
Here's my first reply, from Professor Peter Atkins. (Let me add that I very much enjoyed reading his chemistry textbooks in my university days.) I'd like to thank Professor Atkins for his prompt response. Here it is: (a) y (b) y (c) y (qualified) (d) y (q) (e) y (q) qualified, indicates a modification if the baby is irrevocably damaged in some way PWA ****************************** Professor Peter Atkins Lincoln College, University of Oxford Oxford OX1 3DRvjtorley
January 17, 2011
January
01
Jan
17
17
2011
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply