By Ramesh Ponnuru
Thursday, April 23, 2020
At the network’s website, religion editor Daniel Burke
wades into the philosophical question of when it is permissible to sacrifice
human lives for the greater good. On his telling, advocates of re-opening the
economy are embracing a utilitarian ethic that is at odds with the perspective
they bring to the abortion debate. He concludes:
The point here is not to play
“gotcha.” It’s to expose the moral inconsistency in considering some lives
worth fighting for, while abandoning others for the good of “most Americans.”
If unborn life is sacred, then so
is all life, including the lives made more vulnerable when we go back to work.
On Twitter, Burke describes opposition to abortion
combined with advocacy for re-opening as “moral hypocrisy.” I don’t agree.
Polling consistently suggests that a large majority of
Americans is more worried that we will resume normal activity prematurely than
that we will do it too late — so large a majority that it must include most
pro-lifers. But those pro-lifers who view the question differently from that
majority are not being hypocrites, inconsistent, or utilitarian. Sure, they
think that the expected consequences of an action are relevant to whether it is
morally justified. It would be perverse not to think that. Their
position does not entail the view that the balance of consequences is all that
matters.
If we could resume normal economic activity while knowing
with certainty that three additional Americans would die as a result, nearly
everyone would, rightly, opt for that choice. It would not make all of us
utilitarians without concern for the sanctity of life — any more than we are
monsters for not wanting speed limits to be set extremely low.
If it’s wrong to try to re-open everything now, as I
believe it is, it’s because the economic gains would be much smaller than
advocates think, the cost in lives could be much higher, and thus their
judgment is off. It’s not because they are violating the principle that all
human beings have worth, meaning, and moral status.
Burke writes:
One of the biggest problems with
utilitarianism is the ease with which it treats individual lives as mere means
for social ends.
Consider one famous thought
experiment: Would you kill one healthy person to save the lives of five others
who desperately need organ transplants?
Utilitarianism argues yes, for the
greater good, the one should be killed for the five.
“It jars our common sense,” said
[Oxford philosopher Julian] Savulescu. “People feel a tension and don’t know
how to resolve it.”
Now the pandemic is forcing
doctors, nurses and policy experts to face this thought experiment in real
life.
“The question is staring us in the
face,” said the Oxford philosopher. “Every day is judgment day.”
This seems wholly mistaken, thank goodness. Doctors and
nurses are not, in fact, being asked to kill one healthy person (or even one
sick person) in order to help others. The choice of words in the hypothetical
example illustrates a defect of utilitarianism at the price of also
illustrating its lack of applicability to the situation at hand.
No comments:
Post a Comment