Beginning to Receive Comments on the Starbuck's Cup
I am beginning to receive comments on my cup. Some of the reactions read much more into my quote than I intended, and seem to miss the point I was trying to make. But that's fine. The point of the "As I See It" program, as it was described to me, is to generate thought and discussions about matters of substance. Human equality would certainly seem to fit the bill. So, here is one note I received--not the only along this vein--and my response. (I will continue to keep to my practice of keeping correspondents anonymous unless I am specifically asked to identify them.)
"Dear Mr. Smith:
Does every human life have equal moral value? This is certainly the position of liberal thinkers like Rawls and Dworkin. It eliminates the idea of desert (as in just deserts), without which society cannot operate a system of justice to protect its members. Is a mugger who lies about idle except when he goes out to raise money by assaulting someone the moral equal of a woman, abandoned by her husband, who struggles to support her children? Should she have resources taken away by the state to afford them to the mugger, because he is of equal moral value and otherwise would not have enough, because he chooses not to work?
Before you decide that assuming the equal moral worth of every person is a good idea, you need think through some of the implications."
My response:
"I think you mistake my point. I am writing of intrinsic value, e.g., as humans. This does not prevent us from punishing behaviors, etc. Nor does it imply any particular social welfare policy, particularly equality of results. For me it means that as human beings per se, we each matter equally, e.g., none of us should be used as a natural resource, for example, as some wish to do with those diagnosed in PVS. [To which point, I now add, or using condemned prisoners as organ farms, as seems to be happening in China.]
Of course, the reason I wrote the "cup" was so that people could ponder the matter for themselves, as you have. Thanks for writing. WJS"
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 3:55 PM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
Dear Mr. Smith,
You claim that every human life has equal moral value simply and merely because it is human. I'm not clear just what you mean by "human" here. Do you mean having human genes? If so, that seems rather reductionist. Surely it is not our genetic material per se that gives us intrinsic moral worth, but what this genetic material makes possible. Do you mean having consciousness? If so, one would have to ascribe intrinsic value to many non-humans. If being rational or being a moral agent is the criterion, then of course many humans don't measure up, while many hypothetical space aliens would. Indeed, any criterion used to ascribe intrinsic value to all humans would seem to include many non-humans, while any criterion excluding all non-humans will exclude many humans too.
You are afraid that if we ascribe rights to animals, we will start acting like animals ourselves. But how do animals act? Essentially, they spend their lives working for a living, raising and caring for their mates and offspring, and defending them against danger, often at the risk of their own lives. Perhaps if more of us acted like animals, human society as a whole would benefit.
You've hit upon one of the points of my cup. What does it mean to be human? I say, being a member of the species, an objective criteria. Otherwise, who lives and who dies, who is reduced to a resource and how exploits the resource, becomes a matter of political power. I explicitly reject personhood as a criteria for moral value since it means the end of universal human rights.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home