Just what exactly is an ethicist?
Last night I read a story about two ethicists who hold opinions that much of the world will disagree with. I will get to that in a moment…but first I want to understand what an ethicist actually is.
One would expect that it has to do with ethics…but what is that?
What is the basis of ethics…what is the purpose of ethics…and what do ethicists do?
A quick trip to dictionary.com tells us that one definition of ethics is:
“that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.”
….and that an ethicist is….
“a person who specializes in or writes on ethics or who is devoted to ethical principles.”
I am so thankful that we now have it clear….
An ethicist is a person who writes on a branch of philosophy with values relating to human conduct …with respect to the rightness or wrongness, or goodness or badness of the motives of such actions.
In other words, someone who tells you what is right or wrong.
And this is something we should listen to? These are people who are trained in determining what is right or wrong?
What is the compass they use to make that determination?
And who gives a rat’s ass what they actually say or think?
What makes them ethicists? Their course of study? Could it be their understanding of the world and how it works? Maybe they think they have an inside ear to God’s lips?
Philosophy! Bullcrap if you ask me.
In a world where moral certitudes have been replaced by “do your own thing”…where freedom has come to mean “do whatever you want as long as nobody else is harmed”…where honor means “don’t get caught” and a man’s word is as valuable as a fast food container…what do philosophers offer us?
Deep thinking? Nope.
Understanding of human nature? Nope!
A guidepost that helps us develop our own moral compass? Nope…not even something as vague as that.
They give us…ethicists.
Form Australia we learn that two ethicists have decided that the arguments for abortion could also be applied to post birth situations. That if abortion was acceptable, so too should be the killing of babies after birth.
After birth abortions should be considered in numerous instances:-
- Where the child may be able to live an acceptable life but would put a burden on the parents, we can kill the baby
- Where adoption is an option, but could come back to haunt the mother, killing the baby should be an option
- Where the baby has some physical or mental defect that could place strain on the future economy, kill the baby
To be fair, I cannot be critical without at least showing you their argument for this thinking….
“Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”
So…these two ethicists are saying that it is ok to kill human beings (since both a fetus and a baby is a human being) because they are not yet people…they are simply potential persons.
I am sick to my stomach.
Ethicists indeed! What is their basis…what is their moral guidance…what is their belief structure?
Why not go all the way…elderly people are no longer people since they have used up all their potential…let’s kill them too?
What about people who are no longer able to contribute due to illness…or accident….kill them as well?
What about our returning warriors with arms and legs destroyed…with mental horrors plaguing both their conscious and unconscious states? Let’s kill them too.
Not too many years ago, people who thought the way of these ethicists would have been ignored…would have been expelled from any serious consideration…would have been denied any air time….but today?
Today, this world has moved so far liberal that these lunatics get air time…that their opinions are subject to serious consideration and discussion…
These loons are not ethicists.
In 1976 Logan’s Run was released on the public. Starring Michael York and the great Peter Ustinov, the story is set in 2274 and on the surface, it all seems to be an idyllic society. Living in a city within an enclosed dome, there is little or no work for humans to perform and inhabitants are free to pursue all of the pleasures of life. There is one catch however: your life is limited and when you reach 30, it is terminated in a quasi-religious ceremony known as Carousel.
I imagine it was ethicists that eventually determined that life after age 30 was not worth living...and that Carousel was developed to lull people into believing that renewal was possible and indeed desirable….and, except for the fact that renewal was a euphemism for murder, it would have been wonderful!
Of course, not everyone believed in that sort of renewal…some ran, believing there was an alternative to the Carousel. They were hunted down and killed as runners…
But some still did escape and found that there was life outside…life where men and women could grow old. They learnt of the lies of the ethicists and the horror of the carousel.
But only if they got past a character named Box. Box was in charge of providing food for the dome.
“Box: Regular storage procedure. The same as the other food. The other food stopped coming. And they started.
Logan 5: What other food?
Box: Fish, and plankton. And sea greens, and protein from the sea. It's all here, ready. Fresh as harvest day. Fish and sea greens, plankton and protein from the sea. And then it stopped coming. And they came instead. So I store them here. I'm ready. And you're ready. It's my job. To freeze you. Protein, plankton...”
It seems that Box used all manner of foodstuffs to freeze and provide to the dome…including the bodies of runners he had caught.
This is a nod to the classic 1973 movie starring Charleton Heston…”Soylent Green”…where the bodies of the dead were transformed into food called Soylent Green.
Is this the kind of world we want to live in?
Is this how the writers of Logan’s Run and Soylent Green saw society’s progression?
Until today, I found it difficult to understand that our culture could take that big step across a seemingly huge chasm…a step where we could listen to ethicists’ talk of murder without shouting them down in disgrace.
I ask again….what is an ethicist?
He is a person who throws morality to the four winds, who scatters souls thoughtlessly in the seas and oceans.
He is a man or woman who uses philosophy as an excuse to discard morality…who uses law to destroy compassion…who uses self-motivation and greed to destroy innocence.
Beware the ethicists…they will lead you all to the Promised Land…but not the land promised by God…
They will lead you to the land of Logan’s Run…to the land of Soylent Green.
When we abrogate our own intelligence in favor of those who claim greater knowledge…we abrogate our own freedom….we sell our souls to the minstrels of darkness.
Who are ethicists?
They are the leaders of the Brave New World…a world I want no part of.
They are the thought leaders behind the Occupy movement…they are the influence behind the throne in the White House…they are the corruption on the floor of Congress.
The one thing they are not…
Do not allow ethicists to tell you what to believe. Should you do that, the salt from your tears will parch your skin as you watch the world you love disappear.
Beware, my friends…and stay strong.