The "Stark Raving Mad'' section of
It is argued, for example, that mice, rats, cats, dogs, and other animals should never live or should die unless their lives conform to a minimum standard of quality as defined by animal rights activists. In medical research, animals are sometimes brought into existence for the specific purpose of experiments as are mice in our laboratories here at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. In other cases, stray animals such as cats and dogs are used for experiments. These would otherwise be put to death in animal control facilities.
It is argued that farm animals should not be killed and eaten. Even though these animals, for economic reasons, are usually raised in excellent living conditions and would not live at all except for their use as food, it is argued that non-life is preferable for them.
It is similarly argued that people in underdeveloped countries should never live or should die, because their living conditions do not meet minimum standards of quality as defined by others who do not live in such poor conditions. Moreover, serious parallel debates are in progress in the United States where rationing of medical care is, in part, supported by the argument that euthanasia by non-treatment only causes the deaths of people whose lives are of unjustifiably low quality. It is also increasingly argued that overt killing of human beings can be justified by laws which include standards of living quality regarding the victims and their immediate associates. Proponents of "compassion'' often argue that death is the best available alternative.
It is easy to ridicule these arguments when they involve animals or demonize them when they involve humans. It is also easy to associate opinions with which we do not agree with more fundamental differences. Christians may argue, for example, that atheists are willing to "mistreat'' people because they are not constrained by God's laws. Atheists conversely may argue that Christians are willing to "mistreat'' animals because of human dominion passages in the Bible. If we mix in Jews, Deists, Moslems, and Hindus, we should be able to find reason to disagree about practically everything. Is our technology doomed by these differences? I do not think that it is.
I am a Christian. I have seen well-meaning and intelligent Christians on all sides of these and other technology vs. non-technology issues. I have also seen well-meaning and intelligent people of many other religions and non-religions on all sides of these issues. All of us are both blessed and afflicted by the positive and negative aspects of our human nature. Our allies are the positive aspects of human nature that we all share - if we mobilize them correctly.
It is not enough to have fundamentally good moral and ethical intentions. Those intentions must be translated into working principles that, if consistently followed by the human mind, will lead to good moral and ethical
results. Consider two statements that both arise from the same positive side of human nature and both seem to incorporate moral goals held in common by most religions including atheism.1. We should seek, through science and technology, to minimize the amount of human suffering (and animal suffering).
2. We should seek, through science and technology, to optimize the quality and quantity of human life (and animal life).
The goals stated in the assertions above seem similar. The results of adherence to these statements can, however, be quite different.
How is it possible to argue, for example, that a cat should be killed rather than used in medical research? Is no life better than a sub-optimum life? Minimization of suffering says yes. Optimization of life says no. There is some positive value in the living cat's life, whereas there is none where there is no life - and this can be said without even considering the value of the research itself. The mice in our experiments here might prefer to be free rather than in cages, but caged life is surely of greater value than no life at all.
Regarding humans, the same is true. A starving child should be fed. Even, however, if the child continues to starve and lives in poor conditions, that child's life has positive value. Also, conditions may improve. The principle of minimum suffering, however, can lead to the conclusion that the child should not live.
Moreover, when we undertake to decide who shall live and who shall not, we step out upon a slippery slope that can lead to disaster. From the hopelessly comatose old person or the hopelessly retarded child, human political and social affairs can slide relentlessly downward until all lives are at risk. Ask the tens of millions of dead who were put out of their suffering by communist regimes.
The demonstrators in New York really were saying that the cats at Rockefeller University should be killed. They focused on the imagined suffering - not life. They were pessimists - not optimists. Some were probably animal-worshiping oddballs or anti-technologists. Many, however, were probably moral but misguided people.
The principle of minimization of suffering has a fundamental flaw in its boundary conditions. Suffering can be minimized just by killing everyone. When the fundamental goals that give rise to this principle are instead translated as the principle of the optimization of the quality and quantity of life, this flaw disappears. Then only in the very rare circumstance that a life appears to have negative value should zero life be advocated. The birth of animals for the sole purpose of later killing them for food even has positive value - to the animals as well as farmers and diners. By similar reasoning, the birth of a child, even in very poor circumstances, has great value.
Years ago I read a true story about a policeman who sought to put an injured dog out of its suffering. Gently he cradled the dog's head in his hand and shot it through the head - blowing a hole in his own hand as well. Many "compassionate'' people are similarly engaged.
|
|
Vol. 22, No. 2
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Issues Issue/No.: Vol. 22, No. 2 Date: November 01, 1994 02:19 PM Title: Optimism vs. Pessimism
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|