In comments on a post over at Cameron's blog that references some of the writings of Australian-born ethicist Peter Singer, there is a good discussion that ensues on the issue human innocence. While I agree with Cameron the issue of innocence has become central to many discussions concerning abortion, I also agree with Democracy Lover, at least to the extent that the issue is for the most part irrelevant. Innocent people die and are killed all the time. By what measure or rule can we say that a infant, as opposed to a toddler, a teen, or an adult, is of superior moral worth? Singer, for all his faults, at least wrestles with this question. I do not agree with his conclusions, but as Democracy Lover says, at least he deals with the issue.
I am at a point in my reflections right now that I no longer believe that a word like "innocence" has any meaning or value, because, for the most part, most human beings are a complex mix of naive innocence and compromised morality. Whether we wish to admit it or not, all of us are both morally upright as well as having a vicious streak. The whole issue, it seems to me, when laced with superlatives such as "innocence", becomes more confused, and such terms add far more heat than light.
That is why I agree and disagree with both Cameron and Democracy Lover here.
2 comments:
Thanks for reading all that palaver.
There is certainly an overriding issue here about how one can arrive at an defensible and consistent ethical position. Perhaps there is no such thing, but simply referring to a subjective idea like "innocence" or referring to a holy book of one or another religion just doesn't wash.
I don't know that there can be a surefire way to develop an ethical position. As you have written recently, we need to take into account both the facts and human emotion and fallibility into account.
Ultimately, cognizant of those issues, I find it safer to have decisions about human life or death in the hands of one or two humans who actually have a biological and emotional reason to err on the side of life. When those decisions are made by governments or corporations or other larger groups of humans, they tend to put the needs and desires of the group above respect for human life.
I don't think the word "innocence" is without meaning, but I believe you err by applying only one meaning to it. It's full of meanings which are dependent on its application. When we speak of the unborn as innocent, it refers to the fact that they are totally without blame for anything, particularly their own existence. When we refer to the 3000 innocent civilians who perished on 9/11, the reference is to the lack of any conscious act on their part in their own undoing. They didn't do anything to deserve being roasted and crushed. And certainly in the realm of law and order, a vile thug might be innocent of the crime for which he is being tried, while still being guilty of being a vile thug. I don't see it as a very complex thing at all. In fact, based on the scenario, innocence is most times easy to distinguish and understand. I think you over-analyze.
Post a Comment