Sarah Palin's Real Claim to Fame:
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:03 AM
16 Comments
Secondhand Smoke: Your 24/7 Seminar on Bioethics and the Importance of Being Human
This Blog considers assisted suicide/euthanasia, bioethics, human cloning, biotechnology, radical environmentalism, and the dangers of animal rights/liberation. My views expressed here, as in my books and other writings, reflect my understanding that the philosophy of human exceptionalism is the bedrock of universal human rights. Or, to put it another way: human life matters. (The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of any organization with which I am affiliated.)
Friday, August 29, 2008
About Me
- Name: Wesley J. Smith
- Location: Castro Valley, CA, United States
I am a Senior Fellow in Human Rights and Bioethics at the Discovery Institute and the author of 12 books, including A Rat Is A Pig Is A Dog Is A Boy, which is relevant to the issues considered by this blog.
Previous Posts
- Lincoln, King, Garrison, Douglas, Stanton, and So ...
- What Passes for Animal Rights Credibility:Pretendi...
- The Harsh Values of Health Care Rationing
- The Manuscript is Turned In!
- "Stunning" Adult Stem Cell Success
- SHS Funnies
- New Federal Regulation Favoring "Conscience?"
- SHS Political Funnies
- Science Helps Paralyzed People Walk
- SHS Funnies
Subscribe to
Comments [Atom]
16 Comments:
Not to demonoize anybody but whenever I hear stories about kids with down syndrome, there always seems to be some negativity attached to it. The portrayal of the parents of children with down syndrome is that they 'bit the bullet' for the kid. In my opinion? It's an easy decision for me. I would want and love a child with down syndrome as much as a child without down syndrome.
johnnydontdoit: You are right. ALL are equal. We all belong. No exceptions.
I don't think you have to worry about that with her Johnny. Here's what she's said about Trig.
"We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives."
"We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed."
Johnny- that's probably because there is a legal option for the parents to NOT have to deal with some of the challenges associated with Down syndrome.
In a rational world, folks would have the same reaction for kids born albino, or blind, or with club feet-- but Down's is a popular boogyman, probably because of the mental aspect.
On this Blog it more likely is the dehumanizing & devaluation of the DS child by such folks as those pushing the Great Ape Rights project. They seem to miss the point that mental loss doesn't negate our human desire to protect the rights of those that are "OUR" children and thus enhance our own humanity within the species of mankind.
I should also note that I know quite a few parents that felt blessed to have DS children because they would always have a loving child in their home even as their other children grew up and entered the work force. My cousin has a daughter that is DS. I often wonder if our extra chromosome is a switch which restricts us of the ability to show love and affection with the candor she displays.
"On this Blog it more likely is the dehumanizing & devaluation of the DS child by such folks as those pushing the Great Ape Rights project."
What I find dehumanising is the argument that an animal "should have the same rights" as a "retarded child".
In my eyes, it says "because you are 'retarded', you have no real value or worth. You are the same as an animal, and are only worthy of being treated like an animal. Oh. And to salt the wounds we've made, we're going to demand that animals should be treated better than you should be".
If that's not dehumanising [the argument that your value and claim to the full rights accorded to every human being is situational, and can be withdrawn at society's discretion at any time], then what is?
Hello Tiger.
"On this Blog it more likely is the dehumanizing & devaluation of the DS child by such folks as those pushing the Great Ape Rights project."
What I find dehumanising is the argument that an animal "should have the same rights" as a "retarded child".
In my eyes, it says "because you are 'retarded', you have no real value or worth. You are the same as an animal, and are only worthy of being treated like an animal. Oh. And to salt the wounds we've made, we're going to demand that animals should be treated better than you should be".
If that's not dehumanising [the argument that your value and claim to the full rights accorded to every human being is situational, and can be withdrawn at society's discretion at any time], then what is?
I agree Tiger. My opinion is, the argument by Great Ape Rights supporters is very shallow & disingenuous when weighed against the strength of your observations. The whole family of Apes is unable communicate ,reciprocate, grant rights or show any sign of understanding the morality of our search for balance within the concept of rights for mankind. Yet those supporters wish to relegate children ,human fetus and mentally challenged people downwards on the evolution scale of our species while elevating a whole species that has shown NO Evolution towards morals or understanding the concepts of rights. Within the human family two driving forces exist which add value to our position which the great apes have shown no standard of achieving and which folk like Joshua ignore.
(1) Evolution >We have evolved to a higher level of societal differences in supporting our human family then the Great Apes. When the Great Apes evolve to that plateau then we can negotiate rights.
(2) God created the human Soul > In that case we have been implanted with Souls by the creator which no other animal shows any moral sense of having.
Both observations place man in a higher range of morality and reciprocating rights which Great Ape supporters are trying to destroy by elevating Apes and downgrading our own species members as easy targets. In fact anyone of our Mensa intellects could be in a mentally handicapped position due to car accident or brain tumors. They are wise enough to know that protection of the weak among us is their ticket to humanity even though they might be to damaged to reciprocate those rights.
Donnie.
As far as the nature of "souls" [a concept I believe in, myself] and how it came about is concerned, I can't really devote a lot of words to, since it's not really my thing [I consider myself apathetic on such matters as "spirituality"].
But, regardless of one's opinions about "souls" or if they were given to us or it's a part of being alive or whatever, one point is clear above all others: at no point in the previous history of Planet Earth has a species quite like our own appeared. We are truly unique.
No other animal thinks in terms of morality. While what is and is not moral fluctuates across time and culture, the fact remains that only humans can frame things in terms of "good and bad/evil". Only a human can make a moral, ethical argument.
Whether anyone here agrees with Mr Smith over what is/is not ethical, you cannot deny that he, like us and all others of our kind can think like this, whereas no other animal ever has.
Sure, it's possible that another species will rise to this level some day in a far-flung-off future, but given the number of species known to Earth's history [with more being discovered daily], what are the odds of that? Pretty damn long, don't you think?
Yes, every species is "unique"--if you mean that no other species on Earth can be called Panthera leo or Canis lupus, but I'm talking about "really exceptional", and I mean "possessing traits no other animal ever has before, and based on observance, is an occurance that is extremely rare--rarer than winning every lottery on Earth".
Whether anyone here agrees with what Mr Smith writes about or not isn't important. He's framing things along ethical lines, as do all humans--unless something happens to them to prevent them from realising this potential.
If people can't figure this one out then that really stings my belief in humanity.
But it won't change my mind about our exceptionalism.
[I hope readers here visit Spiked Online now and then [I'm a regular visitor to their site], because while they might disagree with some Mr Smith and/or his readers' opinions, they certainly share the underlying belief in human exceptionalism. [Shameless plug?]]
I concur Tiger. Whether by Evolution or Creationary design, we are the most exceptional of all animals species and the only one that has developed Judges, Lawyers and a written History of the concept of rights based in ethics & morals as we move along .
BTW Tiger, I know you were chastised for illogical thinking above for your views. To my mind, wrongly so . You might find this article very interesting as it certainly shows that very intelligent leaders in Science can drop their evolutionary beliefs in recognizing the absolutes of Science might have more realistic factors that could have been more likely designed by a creator.
You might have read about this leading Scientist,maybe not, but he certainly has a different view now then he did when he studied the intricacies of our human exceptionalism.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/08/07/findrelig.DTL
Quite the read.
"[...] the only one that has developed Judges, Lawyers and a written History of the concept of rights based in ethics & morals as we move along ."
Absolutely. We are aware of both past and present. We think about what was, and ponder over what will be. More than that, we think about how we can influence what will be, and if it will be bad or good.
"BTW Tiger, I know you were chastised for illogical thinking above for your views. To my mind, wrongly so ."
I got chastised over at ScienceBlogs' Pharyngula [PZ Myers' blog]. I said that we are a truly unique species, that we had a "moral sense", etc., etc.
One replier sneered that all species could be construed as "unique" [I said that they were not unique in the sense that we were unique, as we have a mind unseen before [or something like that--I've forgotten my exact words]], and asked if the Aztecs who performed human sacrifice or the Romans who threw Christians to lions had a "moral sense" [I said they did, because they believed that what they did was moral and correct, but that time has proven them wrong, and rightly so. And that even odious thinkers like Vlasak have a "moral sense", because they're categorising things along a "right/wrong" axis, even if their conclusions are still immoral].
"You might find this article very interesting as it certainly shows that very intelligent leaders in Science can drop their evolutionary beliefs in recognizing the absolutes of Science might have more realistic factors that could have been more likely designed by a creator."
Good luck passing that one along over at places like ScienceBlogs. Likely you'll just be mocked mercilessly over it.
Anyone is welcome to try, though.
"You might have read about this leading Scientist,maybe not, but he certainly has a different view now then he did when he studied the intricacies of our human exceptionalism."
From the article: "One piece of evidence was the argument, which is right there in Lewis' first chapter on moral law, [about] the knowledge of right and wrong, which I find to this day a puzzling feature of humanity if all we are is products of evolution. Moral law, which seems to be universal to humankind, calls us, on a regular basis, to do things that are not consistent with the idea that our only purpose is to propagate our own DNA."
In a way, a moral sense does help us to propagate our own DNA. We protect our own, and that allows more of us to survive, and thus reproduce, and produce more yet.
But it's a lot more than that.
Me, I'd ask the question, "What unique set of events helped us develop along this path?" It's a reasonable question to ask, and right now, I'm thinking of the quote I've been using as my email signature for a long time now: "For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk".
I think learning to talk sure helped. It gave us the ability to transmit ideas, to get input from others of our kind. We were no longer "intellectual islands", cut off from each other by vast oceans. We were in contact with each other--moreso than other species. We did not just say "I'm hungry" or "I'm hot" or "Oh no! A snake!"--we told others how we felt and what we thought about, and could get a reply from others about the same.
It's not so far-fetched: English is borrowing words from other languages when it has nothing to offer. We invent new words. We're always finding ways to communicate. Even the deaf and the blind and the mute [and even the comatose] find ways to talk to others.
Almost like we're driven by an urge to reach out to others [and it doesn't stop with ourselves, as we look to the stars with the questions "Is anyone out there? Are we alone? Are we unique?"].
It's amazing when you think about it.
I appreciate your observances Tiger. Your search for reasoned order that builds towards answers is so much better then formulating a belief and then finding only the things that match that end goal.
"I appreciate your observances Tiger. Your search for reasoned order that builds towards answers is so much better then formulating a belief and then finding only the things that match that end goal."
I'd like to think so. Of course, my proposition can be proven wrong later on, by something better, but I hope it's a well-thought-out proposition.
In the end, however we got our moral sense, one thing is certain: allowing it to decay will only end up hurting ourselves and our own kind.
We will become nothing more than mere animals if we don't nurture that part of us and encourage others to do the same. To care about each other. We can't treat ourselves the way some do, or would have us do.
If there is no god to whom we matter, then to whom do we matter? Ourselves. We have to matter to ourselves. Collectively. As a species. As a whole. To everyone. By nurturing our exceptionalism and honouring universal human rights that are not overtured at any time and on the whim of some. Because I don't want to think about a world in which we no longer matter to each other.
We are ever so blessed to feel that our humanity is one of the most blessed aspects of our lives. Good points Tiger. Some folks feel ashamed that we have such power to see ourselves as blessed for our humanity. How morose is that???
"Some folks feel ashamed that we have such power to see ourselves as blessed for our humanity. How morose is that???"
It's pretty sad, but I think that there's still hope for us yet.
In some way, this may strengthen our morality instead of damage it.
[Spiked has a review for an interesting book on morality. It sounds like a good read.]
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home