[lit-ideas] The Dawkins' Delusion
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 00:22:50 +0100
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-apologises-downs-syndrome-tweet
Part of the "apology" reads:
"Those who took offence because they know and love a person with Down's
syndrome, and who thought I was saying that their loved one had no right
to exist, I have sympathy for this emotional point, but it is an
emotional one not a logical one. It is one of a common family of errors,
one that frequently arises in the abortion debate."
Perhaps I have misunderstood; but to say a person with Down's syndrome has a
right to exist seems no more perforce "emotional" than denying they have a
right to exist; and, conversely, it seems no more perforce "logical" to say
such a person has no right to exist than to say they have a right to exist. The
underlying issues are moral ones - not a "logical" one, and not merely an
"emotional" one (though perhaps affected by emotional responses).
For my part I do not think a person having Down's syndrome means their life
would be less worthwhile than otherwise; and do not see a clear "logical" basis
- rather than an emotional one - as to why such a person should be a greater
candidate for abortion than a person without Down's syndrome (whereas a foetus
with a condition that would mean their life would only be short and painful if
born might be a greater candidate for abortion on moral grounds).
The commonest family of errors from the pro-choice lobby is to make the mistake
of thinking that choices cannot be mistaken, even gravely mistaken: even if we
accept that a 'pro-choice' position of some sort is better than no choice, that
does not mean we need accept that the resultant choices may not be mistaken
(and sometimes even immoral). Having the right to decide does not mean what we
decide is right.
It seems to me a world without any persons suffering from Down's syndrome
(because abortion was used to prevent their birth) would be far from morally
preferable to a world where persons with Down's syndrome were never aborted:
but also that it does not follow from this that we should have laws that mean
there is no choice as to whether to abort a foetus with Down's syndrome. The
problem is that setting the terms of "choice" almost inevitably permits bad and
immoral choices.
There seems to me an arrogance of a sort that seems endemic within sections of
academia in a statement like Dawkins', with its misuse of a putative contrast
between "logical" and "emotional" to give a pseudo-intellectual air to Dawkins'
personal morality. I should note that I am an admirer of Dawkins' books on
evolutionary theory but one who often finds him quickly out of his depth on
moral and philosophical matters. I have known people with Down's syndrome and
one of their great assets is that they lack the kind of arrogance too often
found in their intellectual (but not moral) superiors. We could learn a lot
from them on this and other things.
Dnl
Ldn
On Wednesday, 20 August 2014, 18:19, David Ritchie <profdritchie@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Aug 20, 2014, at 8:18 AM, cblists@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
>
> From this week's Harper's Weekly Review (August 19, 2014):
>
> "A Portland, Oregon, man called police to report a chicken crossing the road
> ..."
>
> http://harpers.org/blog/weekly-review/
>
> Is there something you're not telling us, David?
I checked the footnote. This happened in north Portland, where issues are
different. Hereabouts, as you know if you've been following my accounts,
direct action has not been the order of the day. In fact road crossing qua
crossing is the sort of thing that gets sent to committee for further
discussion. But there are currently hints this could change. More on Sunday.
David Ritchie,
poulet wranglaire,
Portland,
Oregon------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] The Dawkins' Delusion - Donal McEvoy
