Hello Dave,
-----Original Message-----
From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 11:52 AM
To: ateo@whitworth.edu
Cc: masters@cox-internet.com; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: [Fwd: RE: [Fwd: RE: Darwinism/Compassion]]]
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:30:22 -0800 Adrian Teo <ateo@whitworth.edu> writes:
<<<Adrian,
I think you are misunderstanding Lucy. She is not advocating euthanasia. She
is rather noting that the effects of actions need to be considered. You have
called this "consequentialism" and consider it wicked. But I note it as a
sensible approach. For a simple illustration, I note the current medical
approach to prostate cancer among seniors. It can certainly be treated
surgically, with chemo or with radiation--x-ray or implantation. But now
doctors usually refrain from treatment, for they recognize that most of
these cancers are so slow growing that the patient will succumb to something
else long before the cancer becomes a danger. They do watch to be certain
that the cancer is not one of the relatively few that grow rapidly, but they
no longer rush to excision as they once did. They view the consequences.>>>
AT: I recognize that I may be misunderstanding Lucy, but as far as I can
tell, she has never accused me of that, which leads me to assume that I am
not.
Let me clarify. Your example of prostate cancer patients seems to me to be
quite different in character from Lucy's. In both cases, I agree that the
underlying principle (which is consequentialist) is to do the lesser evil.
Consequentialists treat this as the single basic moral principle, often
without consideration for other principles that may be significant also. In
your case, not treating is preferred because it minimizes the risk of side
effects of treatment, and the patient in not in any immediate danger of
dying. In Lucy's case, not providing food is preferred because it minimizes
the risk of the side/unintended effects of intervention also, but the people
in question are in dire need, or they will actually die of starvation.
My approach is to apply another important principle, that one can never do
evil to bring about good (or to minimize a greater evil). Non-intervention
may not be inherently evil, but it is evil when one is well aware that
non-intervention leads to immediate, preventable harm. I cannot choose not
to intervene when I see a child being attacked a knife-wielding person just
because I decide that the consequence would be that both I and the child
would get stabbed. Sure, in this case, I could look for alternative
interventions (like running to get help), but in Lucy's case, what are the
alternatives when people are starving to death? So, in the absence of viable
alternative intervention options, I am obligated to work to prevent
starvation.
<<<Lucy is saying that we need to consider the consequences of our
"remedies" for social ills. Had we done so earlier, the problems produced by
liberal welfare provisions would have been avoided. We would have recognized
the problems of closing down institutions for the mentally ill and avoided a
great deal of homelessness. A look at consequences will recognize that the
rapid increase in population in third-world countries makes it impossible to
raise capital rapidly enough to maintain their standard of living, let alone
raise it. Further, the end will be famine, for there is no possibility of
distributing enough food to the exponentially growing populations. What will
produce new problems or exacerbate current difficulties needs to be
considered. In other words, the way we look ahead in planning our lives
needs also to be applied in our stewardship of the earth and its
population.>>>
AT: I agree with your basic principle of applying reasoned foresight and
planning ahead. But we are also required to prevent any immediate harm from
befalling anyone (within our capactity of course). I can never do evil (or
allow preventable evil) to fulfill the moral law.
<<<It looks to me as though your substitute for Lucy's view is
sentimentalism. You are determined that you not only do not want to cause
immediate pain but you also want to do away with any current pain, even
through the long term results will be greater pain. This is like saying, "I
won't let them inoculate my child because the injection makes him cry. I can
add to the diagnosis of your problem myopia and tunnel vision.>>>
AT: I don't think I am advocating sentimentalism. My principle is not
avoidance of pain at all cost, but avoidance of evil. My disagreement with
Lucy was over the issue of whether human death is evil. If it is (as I have
argued), then we need to work to prevent it from occurring (if preventable).
Of course, Lucy has argued that death is not evil, which I think is
inconsistent with orthodox Christian understanding (but that is not to say
that Lucy is not a Christian).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 26 2002 - 11:58:30 EST