Friday, October 20, 2006
First I want to thank Richard Stith for his insightful post, and I would be interested in hearing from Jean Porter and others on how they respond to his conclusion (reasoned from science) that “Human beings do develop. To think they are constructed is flat error. This error remains intuitively plausible and has a decent cultural pedigree, so those who make it should not be dismissed as utterly irrational or evil, even though they may seem so from the viewpoint of one who bears in mind the facts of human development. But they are absolutely wrong. We know with certainty that quickening is an illusion, that the child is developing from the beginning, not being made from the outside, for its form lies within it, in its active potency, in its activated DNA. From the point of view of natural science (and natural theology) delayed ensoulment has lost its reason for being and Occam’s razor should cut it out of our debates.”
Michael P., my brother, I must confess to some frustration over my inability to communicate clearly with you. You say: “I infer from what you have said in this exchange with me that you not only believe that Jean's position is not correct but also doubt that it is a reasonable position. Am I mistaken in my inference that you doubt that Jean's position is reasonable? Perhaps you are presently agnostic about whether Jean's position is unreasonable; perhaps you need to hear from Jean before you can decide whether her position is, in your view, unreasonable.”
As I tried to make abundantly clear in the post here, I have no idea whether Jean’s position is reasonable or not because she hasn’t offered reasons for her position. As I argued in my prior post (and you – or anyone else for that matter – haven’t offered arguments as to why I am wrong in my reading of her essay), Jean offers some nice rhetoric, for example: “if we are to develop adequate and convincing arguments on this difficult issue, we need to engage the arguments of our forerunners in a serious way-especially those arguments that we find most challenging to our own views,” but she fails (in this essay) to give reasons for her own position or to seriously engage her interlocutors. And, you didn’t make up for her deficiency by providing reasons in your remarks about her essay here, here, and here, preferring instead to rest on her authority as a chaired professor at a prestigious Catholic University who participates in John Witte’s programs. Reasonable people can be unreasonable at certain times and in certain situations. I assume Jean is a reasonable person. But, so for I haven’t seen anything to suggest that her disagreement with George, Finnis, Anscombe, Grisez, Haldane, etc. is reasonable (or unreasonable, for that matter).
I don’t want to set up any straw figures for those on my side of the debate to strike down. I want to hear the best arguments on the other side and along those lines I suggest that we proceed in two phases.
First, are there serious arguments that George, Stith, the basic texts in embryology, etc are wrong on the science? In other words, are there serious scientific arguments that the embryo is being constructed from the outside rather than developing from within? If there are, then let us hear those arguments so we can judge for ourselves who has the better argument.
Second, assuming that the basic texts in embryology have it right – that an embryo is a new and distinct human organism in the earliest stage of development (or at least assuming that it is a plausible conclusion) - let us move to a second inquiry. If the embryo is a new and distinct human organism, what are the arguments (philosophical or theological) for treating the embryo as less worthy than all other human organisms? In other words, what are the counter-arguments to the one’s offered by George (here) and others. Once these are laid out clearly, we can judge for ourselves who has the better argument.
BTW, if one accepts arguendo the materialistic and relativistic premises of Richard Rorty, Peter Singer, etc., then I think arguments in favor of embryonic stem cell research, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia are reasonable, and I am thankful for Rorty and Singer because they are willing to embrace the ugly consequences of their arguments in full.
Good night,
Michael S.
First, the question for Richard: In your post, who in this election is evil? And who is (merely?) bad?
Now, the comment on Boonin's book, which both I and then Michael S. mentioned in our posts this evening (here and here): In my new book, Toward a Theory of Human Rights, which Cambridge will publish next month, I explain why I reject Boonin's argument about the moral status of human beings at the earliest stage of their development. Boonin's argument is mistaken, in my judgment--though not unreasonable.
The upcoming election seems to me to pit not "good vs. evil" but "bad vs. evil".
You begin your most recent message by noting that in my message I did not "defend Jean Porter's Commonweal essay." It seems to me that you say this as if it is significant--revealing--that in my post I did not "defend" Jean's essay. If Jean's essay needs defending, Jean is quite capable of defending it herself; she certainly doesn't need me to do it for her. So I am happy that you have e-mailed Jean. In any event, what is at issue is not whether Jean's position in her essay (as distinct from Robby's position) is correct, but whether Jean's position is reasonable--or not. I infer from what you have said in this exchange with me that you not only believe that Jean's position is not correct but also doubt that it is a reasonable position. Am I mistaken in my inference that you doubt that Jean's position is reasonable? Perhaps you are presently agnostic about whether Jean's position is unreasonable; perhaps you need to hear from Jean before you can decide whether her position is, in your view, unreasonable.
Next, in your message you ask me whether I was "accusing [you] of trying to stifle conversation by suggesting that anyone who holds a contrary view is unreasonable?" My answer: No, Michael, I was not accusing you of that offense--the offense of trying to stifle conversation. (Admirably, you seem quite eager for conversation about the moral status of human beings at the earliest stage of their development!) What I was doing is what I did: namely, say that in such conversations we should be very, very wary about accusing those who disagree with us of being not only incorrect but unreasonable. (Again: Not that we should never do so!) Such an accusation (a) often reflects that the accuser has minimized the complexity of the issue at hand and moreover (b) makes productive engagement with those who disagree with us more difficult than it need or should be.
Were you in fact suggesting that those who disagree with Robby's position on the moral status of human beings at the earliest stage of their development are not only incorrect but unreasonable? It seemed to me that, in the context of your exchange with Lisa, that is exactly what you were doing. MOJ-readers can judge for themselves. (Click here.) However, if you now say that you were not suggesting what it seemed to me that you were suggesting, I stand corrected.
Be well, Michael.
Michael
Michael P. mentions David Boonin's book, A Defense of Abortion, in a recent post. I read it (or some of it) three or four years ago. MOJ reader, Ryan Anderson, reminded me of Boonin's raw honesty about what he was advocating. In the preface to the book, Boonin writes:
“The other reason that this book was difficult to write is more personal. On the desk in my office where most of this book was written and revised, there are several pictures of my son, Eli. In one, he is gleefully dancing on the sand along the Gulf of Mexico, the cool ocean breeze wreaking havoc with his wispy hair. In a second, he is tentatively seated in the grass in his grandparents’ backyard, still working to master the feat of sitting up on his own. In a third, he is only a few weeks old, clinging firmly to the arms that are holding him and still wearing the tiny hat for preserving body heat that he wore home from the hospital. Through all of the remarkable changes that these pictures preserve, he remains unmistakably the same little boy.
“In the top drawer of my desk, I keep another picture of Eli. This
picture was taken on September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born.
The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clearly enough a small
head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand
pointing back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the
mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows the
same little boy at a very early stage in his physical development. And
there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it
would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point.”
(emphasis added)
I leave to the readers of his book the task of judging the reasonableness of the arguments he develops in favor of abortion.
A while back I asked (based on only slight knowledge on the subject) whether Benedict was accurate in his assertions about Islam at its essence viewing God as above reason etc. Now a group of Islamic scholars have written to the Pope "applaud[ing] your efforts to oppose the dominance of positivism and materialism in human life, [but listing] some errors in the way you mentioned Islam as a counterpoint to the proper use of reason, as well as some mistakes in the assertions you put forward in support of your argument." Here is substantive debate about what Benedict might really have gotten right and wrong concerning Islam -- or at least its theologically richest forms -- as opposed to the unfortunate sideshow about his passing reference to the Byzantine Emperor's comment on Mohammed. (Note you click on the arrows alongside the text to move ahead or back a page. Thanks to my colleague Teresa Collett for passing the letter on.)
Tom
