blog.andrewsteele.co.uk

Ethics, it seems to me, are basically arbitrary.

Unless you posit an omnipotent God (hopefully an omnibenevolent one!) who has created a moral framework by which we must abide lest we face that omnipotence, there can surely be no absolute morals.

So, given the absolutist ethical views of, say, the American Christian right, that all human beings have a Right to Life, given by God, how does one reconcile their behaviour in everyday life with their attitude to, say, the Terri Schiavo shenanigans?

The belief of Christians (perhaps I generalise…please correct me if so) seems to be that life is a gift from God, and that we as humans have the right to take it from neither others nor ourselves. Thus, they would argue, murder, suicide, euthanasia and abortion are wrong, without exception.

Take the most egocentric example, suicide. It’s wrong to stab yourself or overdose on paracetamol, because your life expectancy through either action is drastically reduced. But is it wrong to smoke? It’s more statistically dubious, but given that the average smoker dies five years sooner than the average non-smoker, it’s surely still an insult to God’s gift?

If you wish to argue that it is acceptable by statistical morality to smoke because you might get run over by a bus in between times, is it as statistically acceptable to shoot someone five years below their life expectancy?

Is it our duty to God to eat healthy food and do regular exercise? Indeed, should our whole lives be devoted to maximising our life expectancy so as not to insult God?

The pragmatic Christians will already be balking at this reductio ad absurdum. The point, however, is this: given that this ultimate conclusion cannot be drawn and that pragmatist- or utilitarian-type considerations get taken into account at some point, what do you do in morally-dubious situations like that of abortion, euthanasia, or assassinating evil dictators?

I was also once told by a Christian, of his love of cigars, that “absolute life expectancy doesn’t concern me anyway, thanks to my worldview”. I shall not attempt to contrast this with the above in his specific case, as I don’t know if he holds the above beliefs. But what of all the (for example) Americans who do?

If you and they are going to end up with eternal life anyway, what does it matter?

It could be argued that Mrs Schiavo’s drain on the health and legal systems was being detrimental to others’ “right to life”. It’s perhaps more clear-cut in the case of a homicidal head of state: surely to kill them is far better than to leave them and let them impinge on the right to life of others?

One of the things I dislike most about President Bush is encapsulated in his attitude to abortion: “As a Christian, I hold life sacred above all other things. Therefore abortion, being removal of this right, is inherently unethical under all circumstances. Unless the mother was raped.” Surely, having admitted this caveat, you can see that there would be other circumstances that at least need consideration for exemption from this blanket ban?

It’s a tough one. Is stabbing an eighty-year-old (who is statistically dead in most Western countries) less bad than convincing a teenager to take up smoking?

I’m not sure this train of thought has a conclusion. Without believing in an absolute moral code, I can’t provide any answers. I think, on reflection, this post is analogous to my rant about creationists. In this case, my arbitrary, undefined morals can provide no better answer, but I’m annoyed by those whose system is not self-consistent.

Can anyone reconcile reality with the rights-based ideal?

Friday, April 1st, 2005 14:13 | permalink | trackback