Opening
In response to Horse 1107, I received a comment from someone called Damian Smith (website found here: http://dsus2.wordpress.com/) and it appears that Damian has a distinct problem with my viewpoint. Although specifically he didn't address why he has the problem, he raises this comment:
I thought Cannold was a brilliant guest and showed why it's unwise to argue with an ethicist. Chances are they've thought it out better than you have - and I think that includes this blog post.
Horse 1107 in essence mainly deals with the logical fallacy of arguing against a standpoint whilst denying that you in fact rely on that standpoint to argue from. The point is though that I have been accused of not thinking this out far enough, rather than the actual material of the post itself, which is rather what I expect that Mr Smith has the problem with.
In the light of this, there are three distinct issues which are touched upon, which I shall now endeavour to unpack. Before I embark on this though, I need to spell out my standpoint because like everyone else, my standpoint is informed by my values.
Firstly I am a Christian (which is fair enough I suppose). Secondly I hold the principle of the sanctity of life. I personally do not see that a so called "Right to Die" exists, nor do I concede that a right to take anyone else's life exists.
Horse 1108a - Abortion.
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/children/index.html
Australia as a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises "that children as well as adults have basic human rights. Children also have the right to special protection because of their vulnerability to exploitation and abuse." It is worth taking particular note of the preamble of the Convention which curiously has this to say:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
"the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance,"
The UN recognises that "childhood is entitled to special care and assistance". Also Article 6.1 states that "States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life."
It is also worth noting that the non-binding Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959) stated that "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth,"
This of course raises a specific question; namely the argument put forward in just about every abortion debate "It's my body, I can do what I want"... Is it really? This quite selfishly states that a mother has an overriding set of rights which are over and above someone who should be "entitled to special care and assistance," also has "the inherent right to life" and according to the UN should have "appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth". Notwithstanding the fact that the Crimes Act 1900 (sections 82,83 & 84) makes it illegal to procure, administer any drug or noxious thing, with the intent of causing an abortion, what possible ethical standpoint can you take here?
If something is illegal and morally repulsive to the point where there are international conventions on it, then this should send a very strong message shouldn't it?
In case you still haven't got it, abortion is repulsive and I think very wrong. If the UN, HREOC and the Crimes Act agree with me, then at what point can it be said that an ethicist has thought it out better than I have?
Horse 1108b - Euthanasia
In New South Wales at least, murder is defined by section 18 of the Crimes Act 1900, and although suicide as a crime has been abrogated at law under section 31A of the Crimes Act 1900, it does not necessarily imply a right.
A right is either a legal, social or ethical principle of freedom and or entitlement. This definition stems from the discussion papers which were drawn up prior to the Bill of Rights Act 1689.
The biggest problem that I have with the so called "Right to Die" is that once someone has carried through with their decision to commit suicide, then that decision is final. The argument "It's my body, I can do what I want" poses the same question as the abortion issue... Is it really?
If my body is my own, then this implies that my body is my property. In other words, ownership of my body belongs to me. However, since owning property itself is a rights concept, then this implies that there is a distinct difference between subject and an owner but it should be obvious to every sane person that there simple isn't is a distinct difference in reality. This is a circular logical fallacy, since if there actually is a difference between the subject and owner, then my body ceases to be my property.
There is always the problem of consent. As far as the idea of legal rationalism goes, the concept of an individual being compos mentis refer to someone being of sound mind. Can someone who wishes to commit suicide even be said to be of sound mind? Is it even therefore possible for an individual to give consent to their own suicide? And if someone else is involved, even though they might be performing actions on compassionate grounds, does that amount to willful taking of life and therefore a complicitous act of murder? In the case of involuntary euthanasia, where does the line get drawn in the case of murder?
Since society generally has decided to abandon the church as its moral guardians, then leaving an issue like this up to mere politicians who would be invariably asked for a conscience vote is a tenuous proposition. It's much better to err of the side of caution when it comes to matters of deciding law than to pass law with ambiguous consequences. It should be also of no surprise to any sane person that when a law has undefined and ambiguous consequences it also leads to unintended consequences.
Horse 1108c - The Death Penalty
I completely understand the need for a society to demonstrate justice, and the need for punishment for severe and violent crimes. However the possibility of making a mistake, and passing judgment to end someone's life when they were in fact not guilty, forms the underlying basis why Australia abandoned the death penalty in the first place. Moreover the public outrage which followed as a result of Ronald Ryan being hanged in 1967 was also based on the possibility that the verdict could have been wrong; this in part led to the Death Penalty Abolition Act 1973.
It is interesting to look at the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights with regards the death penalty. Whilst it is in fact "silent" on the issue, many groups including Amnesty International argue that Article 3, which states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person" can be interpreted along with Article 5 "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" to suggest that the right to life and not to suffer degrading treatment or punishment is universal and that the death penalty violates these rights.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf
Also of note is that United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted resolutions 62/149 and 63/168, calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Since then, other regional bodies or civil society coalitions adopted resolutions and declarations advocating for a moratorium on executions as a step towards global abolition of the death penalty.
Most notably, the EU in its Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, outright abolished the death penalty and because it is binding on all EU member states, then likewise the death penalty ceased to exist (if it did) in those nations with the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009. The EU's position is pretty well much an extension of the position of the UN.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf
Article 2 - Right to life
1. Everyone has the right to life.
2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.
The nation of Australia itself except for Aboriginal peoples, started out as a penal colony. Any way that you to care to look at it, being transported to a foreign land is still a more humane punishment than the death penalty.
Closing Remarks
Law exists for a number of functions. It acts as a standard which defines what is an isn't acceptable. It acts as a regulator so that society doesn't descend into chaos. It sometimes acts as referee, so that when someone has broken the standards or regulations, it finds appropriate remedies and/or punishments.
Call me an idealist, but I think that law generally should be written to either reflect or uphold the best possible standards. People generally as proven in everyday life, with something even as simple as doing 113km/h on the motorway, will nudge and break those standards on a consistent basis; therefore you can not reasonably expect that people will act according to those best possible standards. Is it then wise to abandon standards simply on the basis of freedom and choice?
I would argue that an "ethicist" hasn't "thought it out better than I have". In this case the ethicist merely has a different viewpoint; and me being well within my right to free speech, and my right to express myself, I also am perfectly capable of saying that the line of argument put forward by Dr Cannold is unacceptable. Furthermore, can it reasonably be said that the "Chances are they've thought it out better than you have" is true, especially considering that I've taken 1500+ words to express that opinion and have the weight of several international organisations behind me?
Perhaps it is worth looking at the preamble to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights once more:
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
To put it bluntly, Dr Cannold outraged my conscience and if her viewpoint is allowed to continue to fester into the common conscienceness of society generally, in my opinion it will result in barbarous acts in stark contrast to the highest aspiration of the common people.
No comments:
Post a Comment