Dissenting Futilitarian no. 2

2
D EAR HONOURABLE MEMBERS. I pray that my last effort proved a small comfort. How few understand the difficulty you face in having all our hardest questions pushed upon you. That you might be vindicated, and sleep the sleep of the just, let me continue to relate how I came to see your wisdom in pushing away that foul issue . Last week I ended with my visit to P rof. GROAN, a political philosopher friend, a visit, I said, that left me decidedly uneasy. “It is wonderful,” said GROAN, “that M r. VALEUR- DE-BOIS has directed the government ( in his proposed deliberations on the question of our humanity) to be guided by ‘the relevant experts ’. But he has evidently decided, to boot, whom these experts are.“I mean, he has not decided this just for himself,” said my friend, “he has decided it the same way for everyone else: he has named the ‘relevant experts ’ as ‘medical science ’. The law, he says, is out of step with ‘the medical evidence about when a child actually does become a human being .’ Do you not find it odd, my dear man, that he has called for open enquiry and in the very same breath closed the mode of enquiry, predefined the make-up of the panel of experts? His Motion asks about the preponderance of medical evidence ’: well, are the relevant experts ’ really just doctors ?” “But whom else should we consider?” I asked. “He is a religious man, you have said; presumably, for a believer, the word of God has some claim to expertise: why not hear the views of pastors and priests? And could you really stop there in a country such as ours? Why not rabbis and imams? Why not shamans, the spiritual leaders in traditional First Nations communities who have special knowledge of the spirit world? But are such figures experts for those of us who believe in no supernatural realm? What experts, I ask, do the rest of us recognize in this regard? There are those like myself who guide their lives not by a religion but by a philosophy.” The complexion of the issue was changing second by second, at about the rate of my rapidly drooping face. But my astonishment seemed only to egg the Professor on. I n fact, I believe we must go farther down this line,” he added. “Is there really such a thing as ‘expertise per se : experts for you and I, no matter who we are, with respect to any given thing? Is not expertise ’ in fact a philosophical notion? I mean,” he continued, “God is an expert for some; he is the very supreme authority for those who inhabit religious views of the world. But he is not an expert in my world - how could he be, when he is not in my world?” My expert is William James, John Dewey - the pragmatist philosophers. Or, rather: you could even say that my expert is myself , as the idea of whom I would call expert originates inside of me! Perhaps you find that strange but strange, indeed, is life. Life, my dear man, is messy. - And here is my point,” he continued. He did continue. I was rather wishing he would not, as I wanted nothing better than to run off and cradle my head in a sling or wrap it in a damp towel, or drown it. - “Good heavens,” I raged in the inwardness of my thoughts ( where, mentally, I was shrieking at the top of my lungs) , “we are talking about stating what a human being is ! About saying what thaT wretched THING , in your wife’s bulging belly, that is about to be born ... stating what thaT THING is! Is there really any need for all this folderol about philosophies and worlds ?! What ‘worlds ’? Do you really doubt that my arms can reach right into your world and twist your scrawny neck?!” I knew this reaction to be bad. Yes, probably not the inner response of a man who loved the Truth and sought the balm of her company, abiding at rest in her peaceful sanctum. Indeed, the present doubt that I was such a man, a man at all fit for the task I had taken upon myself ( to follow the promptings of my soul to the Truth in this matter of Our Humanity) , was a convulsing component of my ill-feeling. O Truth, do I love you, and take joy in you - or am I enraged by you? AND Then what am I ?! Far from abiding quietly in her sanctum, I was run- ning amuck, swiping clean her mantelpiece and dashing her vases to the floor. Meanwhile the Professor had continued: “The idea of what things really are: in philosophy we call this concern M e ta - physics ( what things really are is a Metaphysical question) . And don’t you see? What things really are depends upon your prior Metaphysical commitments ( there is a God, there is nothing but matter, etc.) . So who counts as an ‘ expert’, as an authority ’ - well, it all depends.” He concluded his speech thus: A doctor is not a metaphysician; he is a physician. His concern is not What things are; it is What is wrong with you. I trust him to tell me if this mole on my nose is dubious: I trust him with the defining features of a dubious mole , not with the defining features of a human being .” Mentally exhausted, I left the Professor with the most rudimentary of gracious goodbyes and stumbled into the street, my brains throbbing. I wished to mother my aching head ( or put it out of its misery) , but I also knew that the reason I wished to do so was that I could not free it of what the Professor had placed within it. Was it the truth? I did not know - but I could not eject it! How I wished to lay hold of some simple argument and club the Professor’s words to dust and powder, to be swept out the door of my mind: yet I had none with which to do it. His words sat there like crates of stones, enraging me precisely because I could not move them. The only thing clear to me was that this simple matter was not as simple as I had wished it to be. There on the sidewalk, before I left the Professor, a last shred of wit allowed me to ask a single question: “But according to your philosophy, P rof. GROAN, tell me: what is it ? By your metaphysics, what is that thing in a woman, a woman you call human, and who is, as we say, ‘reproducing’ - ... what is it then that is about to be born?!” He looked at me as if I had reached for his wallet - but then his expression softened: “We need time for that, my boy. In my philosophy we would need to consider the consequences of any manner of answer we might give ... and circumstances alter cases, as you know. So another time, another time,” and his door clicked shut. I n the days that followed I tried to extract from the professor’s words the relevant conclusions. But what were they?! There are no experts .” That cannot be correct, for manifestly there are. Why are there experts about cells and not about men, I wondered. Was the proper conclusion that “there is no answer to this question about the resident of the womb except all the answers : his answer , her answer , every answer under the sun according to every possible metaphysics ”? But if that were the relevant conclusion, my goodness: how then could we agree upon anything? It occurred to me then that I had yet to look into the history of this problem . Did we once have consensus, in the establishing of what is human and, if so, whatever could have happened? That, it seemed, the history books would answer and I rushed to the library. N o. 2 28 MAY 2012 } } The D I S S E N T I N G F U T I L I T A R I A N { { LE T T E R S T O M E M B E R S O F P A R L I A M E N T F R O M A C I T I Z E N O N T H E S U B J E C T O F T H E P R O P O S E D I N V E S T I G AT I O N I N T O O U R H U M A N I T Y P r e f a b d e b a te , c h e a p c h u n k s o f t h o u g h t , d u m p e d o n y o u r p l a t e , r e a d y o r n o t ! B The Honourable .................... , M.P. House of Commons Ottawa

description

Issue 2 of an epistolary newspaper addressed to Canada's Members of Parliament

Transcript of Dissenting Futilitarian no. 2

Page 1: Dissenting Futilitarian no. 2

D EAR HONOURABLE

MEMBERS. I pray that

my last effort proved a small comfort.

How few understand the difficulty

you face in having all our hardest

questions pushed upon you. That

you might be vindicated, and

sleep the sleep of the just, let me

continue to relate how I came to

see your wisdom in pushing away

t h at f o u l i s s u e .

Last week I ended with my visit to Prof .

GROAN, a political philosopher friend, a visit,

I said, that left me decidedly uneasy. “It is

wonderful,” said GROAN, “that Mr. vALeuR-

de -bO I s has directed the government

(in his proposed deliberations on the question

of our humanity) to be guided by ‘the relevant

experts’. but he has evidently decided, to boot,

whom these experts are.”

“I mean, he has not decided this just for

himself,” said my friend, “he has decided it

the same way for everyone else: he has

named the ‘relevant experts’ as ‘medical science’.

The law, he says, is out of step with ‘the

medical evidence about when a child actually does become

a human being.’ do you not find it odd, my dear

man, that he has called for open enquiry and

in the very same breath closed the mode

of enquiry, predefined the make-up of the

panel of experts? His Motion asks about

‘the preponderance of medical evidence’: well, are the

‘relevant experts’ really just doctors?”

“but whom else should we consider?” I asked.

“He is a religious man, you have said;

presumably, for a believer, the word of God

has some claim to expertise: why not hear

the views of pastors and priests? And could

you really stop there in a country such as

ours? Why not rabbis and imams? Why not

shamans, the spiritual leaders in traditional

First Nations communities who have special

knowledge of the spirit world? but are such

figures experts for those of us who believe

in no supernatural realm? What experts, I

ask, do the rest of us recognize in this

regard? There are those like myself who

guide their lives not by a religion but by

a philosophy.”

The complexion of the issue was changing

second by second, at about the rate of my

rapidly drooping face. but my astonishment

seemed only to egg the Professor on.

“In fact, I believe we must go farther

down this line,” he added. “Is there

really such a thing as ‘ex p e rt i s e ’ per se :

experts for you and I, no matter who we

are, with respect to any given thing? Is not

‘ex p e rt i s e ’ in fact a philosophical notion?

I mean,” he continued, “God is an expert for

some; he is the very s u p r e m e aut h o r ity

for those who inhabit religious views of

the world. but he is not an expert in my

world - how could he be, when he is not in

my world?”

“My expert is William James, John dewey - the

pragmatist philosophers. Or, rather: you could

even say that my expert is myself , as the

idea of whom I would call expert originates

inside of me! Perhaps you find that strange

but strange, indeed, is life. Life, my dear man,

is messy. - And here is my point,” he continued.

He did continue. I was rather wishing he

would not, as I wanted nothing better than

to run off and cradle my head in a sling

or wrap it in a damp towel, or drown it. -

“Good heavens,” I raged in the inwardness

of my thoughts (where, mentally, I was

shrieking at the top of my lungs), “we are

talking about stating what a human being

i s ! About saying what thaT wretched

THING , in your wife’s bulging belly, that

is about to be born ... stating what thaT

THING is! Is there really any need for

all this folderol about philosophies and

wor l d s ?! What ‘worlds ’? do you really

doubt that my arms can reach right into

your world and twist your scrawny neck?!”

I knew this reaction to be bad. Yes, probably

not the inner response of a man who loved the

Truth and sought the balm of her company,

abiding at rest in her peaceful sanctum.

Indeed, the present doubt that I was such

a man, a man at all fit for the task I had

taken upon myself (to follow the promptings

of my soul to the Truth in this matter of

Our Humanity), was a convulsing component

of my ill-feeling. O Truth, do I love you,

and take joy in you - or am I enraged by

you? AND Then what am I?! Far from

abiding quietly in her sanctum, I was run-

ning amuck, swiping clean her mantelpiece

and dashing her vases to the floor.

Meanwhile the Professor had continued:

“The idea of what thing s really are :

in philosophy we call this concern Meta-

physics (what things really are is a

Metaphysical question). And don’t you

see? What things really are depends upon

your prior Metaphysical commitments (there

is a God, there is nothing but matter, etc.).

so who counts as an ‘expert’, as an

‘aut h o r ity ’ - well, it all depends.”

He concluded his speech thus: “A

doctor is not a metaphysician; he

is a physician. His concern is not

What things are; it is What

is wrong with you. I trust him

to tell me if this mole on my nose

is dubious: I trust him with the

defining features of a dubious

mole , not with the defining features of a

human being .”

Mentally exhausted, I left the Professor

with the most rudimentary of gracious

goodbyes and stumbled into the street, my

brains throbbing. I wished to mother my

aching head (or put it out of its misery),

but I also knew that the reason I wished to

do so was that I could not free it of what

the Professor had placed within it. Was it

the truth? I did not know - but I could not

eject it!

How I wished to lay hold of some simple

argument and club the Professor’s words to

dust and powder, to be swept out the door

of my mind: yet I had none with which

to do it. His words sat there like crates

of stones, enraging me precisely because I

could not move them. The only thing clear

to me was that this simple matter was not

as simple as I had wished it to be .

There on the sidewalk, before I left the

Professor, a last shred of wit allowed me

to ask a single question: “but according to

your philosophy, Prof . GROAN, tell me:

what is it? by your metaphysics, what is

that thing in a woman, a woman you call

human, and who is, as we say, ‘reproducing’

- ... what is it then that is about to be

born?!”

He looked at me as if I had reached for his

wallet - but then his expression softened:

“We need time for that, my boy. In my

philosophy we would need to consider the

consequences of any manner of answer we

might give ... and circumstances alter cases,

as you know. so another time, another time,”

and his door clicked shut.

I n the days that followed I tried to

extract from the professor’s words the

relevant conclusions. but what were they?!

“There are no experts .” That cannot be

correct, for manifestly there are. Why are

there experts about cells and not about men,

I wondered.

Was the proper conclusion that “there is no

answer to this question about the

resident of the womb except all the

answers : his answer , her answer , every

answer under the sun according to every

possible metaphysics”? but if that were

the relevant conclusion, my goodness: how

then could we agree upon anything?

It occurred to me then that I had yet to look

into the h i sto ry o f t h i s p r o b l e m . did

we once have consensus, in the establishing

of what is human and, if so, whatever could

have happened? That, it seemed, the history

books would answer and I rushed to the library.

No.

2 28 MAY

2012}}

The DIssen TIng Fu TIlITarIan {{

L ET T E R S TO M EMB E R S O F PA R L I A M E N T F R OM A C I T I Z E N O N T H E S U B J E CT O F T H E P R O P O S E D I N V E ST I G AT I O N I N TO O U R H U M A N I T Y

P r e - f a b d e b a t e , c h e a p c h u n k s o f t h o u g h t , d u m p e d o n y o u r p l a t e , r e a d y o r n o t !

B

The Honourable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , M.P.House of CommonsOttawa

Page 2: Dissenting Futilitarian no. 2

“Hmm,” he said, “ye-e-s-s, that would be

true. What actually are the ‘facts’ that do

not support my call for discussion?’

“Metaphysics,” I said; “the fact of competing

philosophies.”

“Well, let us see. Consider: when the question

we are asking is, What is it?, how in ordinary

circumstances do we go about obtaining

an answer? do we just shrug and say, ‘The

fact of competing philosophies! Who can

know?!’ I think we are more advanced than

that, don’t you?” (To that, I was agreed.)

“We answer such a question,” he went on,

“by determining what k i n d o f t h i n g

it is and turning to the experts on t h at

k i n d o f t h i n g . For example, this thing

here (he plucked a plant from a vase on his

desk): What is it? do you know?”

“It is a flower,” I said.

“Yes, but what flower? We

are agreed that it is a

flower: excellent! Who then

knows more? Is it not

the Botanist? should we

not consult the one who

has knowledge, who has

science (a word that comes

from the Latin scientia,

meaning ‘knowledge’)? Isn’t

a question about when

someone ‘becomes a h u ma n

being’ a question about

h u ma n development? so,

quite simply, who studies

human development?”

“Well” (suddenly recalling texts I had

consulted that very afternoon, e.g., The

developing Human) , “it is , I believe,

biologists , Embryologists .”

“Yes, embryologists. should we not, then,

consult the Embryologist , to know

what that thing we call an ‘embryo’ is?

Is it a human being? ‘uterine material’? A

‘gestational sac’? I think you will find our

knowledge sufficiently developed to

establish what this or that natural, physical

thing is . As for what is more than physical,

Meta-physical, you say” (he looked this up

in a dictionary) - “it says ‘beyond physical

reality’ - well, I am not asking about that.

It is the physical thing in the womb that

I am asking about. Have we no ex p e rts

about that k i n d of thing?”

(Aggghh!! Yet again I did not know which

way to turn! I speak to that man and he

convinces me! I speak to this man and he

seems right! Yet they disagree with one

another! Am I a complete idiot? I stood up

and glanced longingly at the window: might

I dive out of it? but I could not remember

which floor I was on and was forced to

reconsider, then bid the Member a hasty

goodbye and ran moaning down the echoing

stairwell.

And this seems a good point at which to

pause until next time - as, for better or

worse, there is more !)

I am, etc.

1 1 D i s s e nt i n g f ut i l ita r i a n . b lo g s p ot.ca

In my reading, as you may guess,

I was quickly led to that loud and

neighbouring land to the south, where this

f o u l i s s u e had first given trouble.

I scanned the words of the decision in the

famous case of Roe v . wade (a ruling so

pivotal in this history) and was instantly

startled by the following. What the Justices

on the bench of the supreme Court of the

united states of America had said, in

1973, was this: that on “t h e d i f f i c u lt

q u e st i o n o f w h e n l i f e b eg i n s ...

When those trained in the respective disciplines of

medicine, philosophy, and theology are u na b l e to

a r r iv e at a ny c o n s e n s u s , the judiciary,

at this point in the d ev e lo p m e nt o f ma n ’s

k n ow l e d g e , is not in a position to speculate as

to the answer.” (Roe et al. v. Wade, 1973, 410 u.s. 113)

Amazing. experts ... who disagree! Were

Prof . GROAN’s ideas confirmed?! (Think

it through carefully, I told myself,

this is not too hard for you.) First, the

judges were saying that by 1973 we had

no “consensus” on “the difficult question of when

life begins.” (Clear! And a date of disarray

had now been established!) but why

was this consensus absent in 1973? *Were the u.s. judges saying that our prior

agreement about when a human being is

formed had dissolved - o r - were they

saying that in history we had nEVER yet

reached any such agreement , owing to

the rudimentary “development of man’s knowledge”?

They seemed to allude to a point of common

“knowledge” that we might one day reach

(a knowledge that would either restore

a lost consensus or create a new

consensus). Or did they believe in no such

consensus? (I wiped my brow; the labour

of forming these thoughts had broken me

into a sweat. but at least now the fog was

ordered into different patches of gloom!

Was victory coming? - Ha!)

I wondered, what would you have

thought, dear Members, had I, on that

busy day, sat down beside you on a park

bench as you ate your sandwich and related

to you these very things. What? Would you

have said, “This is knowledge we once had

and can have again” - o r - “This knowledge

lies in our future, yet to be reached (and,

because it matters, we should try very

hard to reach it)” - o r , in agreement with

Prof. GROAN (and surely this was his

meaning exactly), “This knowledge is

perfectly unreachable, an utter fantasy that

we could never hope to achieve”?

Would you have said, “With these three

possibilities, plainly this question must be

looked into further”? How I wish I could

have shared your muffin and heard your reply!

but ah, I know you and I can guess your

mind! You would have said (would you not?),

“I see deeper into all this than you, and there

is nothing there to see - have my banana.” It

is only now (after all my pains, which I

assure you continued beyond that day) that

I have come round to your insight and am

able to wink and say, with you, “Aha, it is

t h at f o u l i s s u e - No Thank You!”

but let me proceed to a most pivotal part of

my story: my meeting with Mr. vALeuR -

de -bO I s himself! Have I mentioned that

I had arranged to speak with him? I had

earlier resolved to drop GROAN’s challenge

right in his lap!

But first something was troubling me.

GROAN had said that the Member

had fastened onto science because science

was in agreement on this issue - but hadn’t

the supreme Court said the opposite: there

was no agreement to speak of? While still

in the library I resolved to settle one more

question: Is science agreed as to the

point at which we exist?ÉÉÉ

I t i s no t o f c ou r s e

physicians who study the

early development of human

beings but embryologists,

the authors of textbooks

titled Human embryology

and The developing Human.

I pulled from the shelves

books published before

and during the time of

trouble. How surprised I

was to find that, even

after Roe, these books

continued to say what

they had said for a

century! (believe me: if I

had found one embryology

text that did not I would

gladly quote it here.) Note the following

excerpts:

“The term conception refers to the union of the male

and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which

a new liv ing being develops.... The zygote

thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.” (J.P. Greenhill & e.A. Friedman, biological Principles and

Modern Practice of Obstetrics, 1974, 17, 23)

“Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being

is created which is alive and will continue to live

unless its death is brought about.” (e.L. Potter & J.M. Craig,

Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd ed., 1975, vii)

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoon and

resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to

the union that ... marks the initiation of the

lif e of a new indiv idual .”

(Clark edward Corliss, Patten’s Human embryology, 1976, 30)

“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization ... is

a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances,

a new genetically distinct human

organism is formed when the chromosomes of

the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”

(Ronan O’Rahilly & Fabiola Mueller, Human embryology

and Teratology, 3rd ed., 2001, 8)

“A zygote is the beginning of a new human being

(i.e., an embryo).” (Keith L. Moore, The developing

Human: Clinically Oriented embryology, 7th ed., 2003, 2)

Not sure (yet again) what to make of my

findings - before my question was answered

it seemed still more thinking was demanded,

as I had yet to come round, dear Members,

to your sharpened state of perception (“do

you smell a f o u l i s s u e ?”) - I saw it was

now time to set off for the Member’s office!

The moment of reckoning was

upon us. Face to face with the

smiling man himself, I opened boldly (since

everybody else was doing it): “It is not true,

I have been told, that you are concerned

with facts . Rather, you favour the facts

that support your conclusion!” * Note: I mark thus questions to which I felt bound

and committed to obtain an answer!

• 1

2•