David Benatar is a professor of philosophy and head of the department of philosophy at the University of Cape Town, where he is also the director of the Bioethics Centre. He published a book in 2006 that argued that "coming into existence is always a serious harm." Benatar believes that "People should never, under any circumstance, procreate." Benatar even appeals to Ecclesiastes for support. He argues that "all lives contain more bad than good, and that they are deprived of more good than they contain." Benatar's argument is that it is immoral to have children. (You may be thinking, "What ... is he advocating the end of the human race???" Yes ... yes he is. His concluding statement at the end of this "anti-natalist" essay is, "The question is not whether humans will become extinct, but rather when they will. If the anti-natalist arguments are correct, it would be better, all things being equal, if this happened sooner rather than later for, the sooner it happens, the more suffering and misfortune will be avoided.")
I gave the link; feel free to read it for yourselves. He gives a lengthy argument about the harm done to and by human beings. He spends a significant portion detailing the harm to the planet done by humans. His argument against the existence of human beings at all is an argument from harm. And we all know that's the best way to determine morality -- "Does it cause harm?" I wondered, when I read the article, how a professor that advocated the end of the human race could possibly be the director of bioethics. That's how. And this is the same "high road" taken by many childless people today. "It is impossible to choose to procreate from anything but a selfish and/or irrational reason." Another (interestingly Hindu) source argues, "Let me start by stating three principles that I think you would agree with. One: We should not cause suffering to others. Two: We should not kill anyone. Three: Consent is all-important, and we should do nothing to others without their consent." And since procreation violates all three -- "you are basically bringing a person into this world without their consent, where they are guaranteed to a) suffer, and b) die." -- well, you can see the conclusion.
I've asked this question before. No one seems to have an answer. What makes us humans think that we know what "harm" is? Why do we assume we are clear on what "good" is? We are so sure of this stuff that we are even willing to blame God for not being good. And when Paul claims "No one does good, not even one," (Rom 3:12) we're quite sure he's wrong. It doesn't matter that we've made a practice of declaring "good" that which God says is not and finding that harm results where we never saw it coming.
Solomon wrote, "Those who forsake the law praise the wicked" (Prov 28:4), where "the law" is a reference to "God's Word" (as opposed to "civil law" or some such). Clearly without God's Word we will end up calling "good" bad and vice versa. We can be quite clear that "good" is defined not by our preferences or opinions, but by God. Similarly, we can be equally sure that "harm" is defined not by our ideas, but by God who made us. The "harm principle" as a method of determining morality is a failed system primarily because humans are sinners who are deceived and blind. Followers of Christ and His Word ought to know better.
12 comments:
Think of the harm done to that NY terrorist when he was captured after mowing down people with a truck. Or the harm done to both the Las Vegas and Texas shooters when they were forced to shoot themselves by those seeking to capture them. I would imagine that we should not impede or punish those who do harm if we can't do so without inflicting harm upon them.
I wonder if avid proponents of the Harm Principle would actually argue that point.
If this professor is serious, he should lead the charge of lemmings by being the first to jump off the cliff. but he has made a point that fly's in the face of his contemporaries, he inadvertently admits there is a human condition that differs from nature.
1. Isn’t Darwinian theory essentially predicated on harm? As someone said “Nature is red in tooth and claw.”.
2. How does one deal with things that seem to cause harm, but lead to a greater good? Or. Things that are harmful in the short term, but lead to good in the long term.
3. What about things that are both harmful and helpful at the same time?
Yes, Bob, one is almost tempted to say, "You want the human race to end? You go first." The contradiction that existence is evil but "I'm surely not going to end mine" is a problem.
Problems, problems, Craig. And what do we do when someone says, "If I harm this guy, it will advance my cause, so that harm is okay"?
Good question. Darwinian theory would say that as long as the result advances the species then it’s not only OK, but it’s actually a good thing.
The whole materialistic/naturalistic/Darwinian thought process just mystifies me.
Yes, that thought process baffles me, too. As does the whole "consent" theory, where "It's perfectly okay as long as they give consent." Especially when they consent to harm. Sigh. Not making sense.
Given the documented harm caused by homosexual sexual practices, how could anyone who buys into this encourage or support those who engage in those acts.
Ultimately, either consent or harm has to take priority. You can’t say harm is the standard, if you allow exemptions for consent. You can’t say consent is the standard without excluding things that result in harm.
Yes ... but they do. They disallow consent and disallow harm and they allow harm and allow consent. No consistency; no logic.
how is it that said professors remain such? it seems that we are dealing with negligible returns. the greater the degree, the less intelligent one gets. even a child can see the contradiction in this position. when do we start stripping these people of their credentials?
part of the difficulty is that professors like this are riding on their dubious degrees. and as such they get to fill the minds of fools with useless information. there should be a means to demote these clowns..
That was my first response. "How does someone that advocates the end of the human race have any say in bioethics?"
Post a Comment