This morning, I was part of a one-hour program, "The Disbelievers", on ABC Radio National's "Life Matters" program. It was great to get a full hour devoted to this topic. Other speakers on the program included Philip Kitcher, Emma Tom, Jack Dann, and Sean Williams - all contributors to 50 Voices of Disbelief. You can download or listen to the program here ... and you can comment about it on the ABC site here (or go here to see what others have been saying; as I write this, there's a thoughtful discussion going on, with some very detailed comments).
I thoroughly enjoyed doing this show. There were some things said by other speakers that I didn't entirely agree with or expect, but that's not really the point. I think they all came across as likeable and interesting, thoughtful and compassionate people. As Udo Schuklenk and I said in the introduction to the book, there's no party line that we expect our contributors to toe ... except that it's important for those of us who reject gods and religious doctrines to stand up and say so, and to explain why.
It's also important that we show we're real people who are engaged with life and with others around us. We're not merely negative - God, humbug! - and we're not leading dessicated and abstracted, or bleak and empty, lives. You can lead a good life - full to the brim with purpose, enthusiasm, and meaning - without buying into religious organisations and thought structures. Everyone on the show demonstrated that amply.
Many thinks to Anne Delaney, the show's producer, and Richard Aedy, the presenter ... as well as to the folks mentioned above and to all the others who took part.
An hour is a long time for a show like this, and (as above) I'm grateful that we were given so much airtime. Then again, with the talent that we had available, plus the high level of audience interest, we could have easily and enjoyably filled a two-hour slot. There was still much more to say, and some interaction among the speakers might have been extremely interesting. I hope they'll follow up with us some time; I'd certainly be pleased to be back.
About Me
- Russell Blackford
- Australian philosopher, literary critic, legal scholar, and professional writer. Based in Newcastle, NSW. My latest books are THE TYRANNY OF OPINION: CONFORMITY AND THE FUTURE OF LIBERALISM (2019); AT THE DAWN OF A GREAT TRANSITION: THE QUESTION OF RADICAL ENHANCEMENT (2021); and HOW WE BECAME POST-LIBERAL: THE RISE AND FALL OF TOLERATION (2024).
Friday, December 18, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
What about the children?
At a time when the Australian government has announced its decision to introduce a new regime to censor the Internet, it's worth thinking again about the argument that exposure to certain kinds of speech and expression might be harmful to children. The problem is that it is difficult to find evidence as to what kinds of material are actually likely to produce that kind of harm.
I am prepared to accept that the state has an interest in paternalistic protection of children from propaganda for dangerous commercial products such as cigarettes. But what other kinds of harm might be relevant? Before banning speech on this basis, a legislature would presumably need to be armed with studies of what kinds of material produce feelings of distress, shock, nausea, and so on, or even psychological trauma of the kind that could be evidenced by, for example, phobias, withdrawal, or nightmares.
While more needs to be known, I suggest the following as a first approximation. The kinds of speech and expression that are likely to produce distress, or even psychological trauma, if shown to young children, might include depictions of cruelty to animals, depictions of sympathetic human or animal characters being killed, and supernatural threats (such as threats of hellfire or divine vengeance). Obviously, it would difficult to frame legislation that is directed at protecting children from exposure to this sort of material, though classification codes that offer advice to parents, rather than attempting to ban speech and expression outright, may be of some value in this respect. Furthermore, it is not obvious that using an age such as 18 would be appropriate if the idea is to protect young children from distress or psychological trauma: i.e., it is not at all clear that any particular material is likely to have such an impact on, say, teenagers, any more than on adults.
What counts as "harm" to children outside the area of distress or psychological trauma might also depend on the beliefs and values of the person alleging the harm. A conventional moralist driven by Augustinian ideas that the body and its functions are shameful might find something "harmful" in any exposure of children to nudity — but such contestable ideas should receive no official support in a liberal society.
By contrast, somebody with very different beliefs and values might consider it more harmful to expose young children to traditional religious ideas. It may be that ideas of gods, devils, spirits, and so on possess a psychological attraction for human beings that is out of proportion to the actual evidence that any such things exist (perhaps because we have evolved with a tendency to over-attribute agency or purpose to the phenomena around us). Children may be especially prone to absorbing such ideas - even though they are neither well-evidenced nor actually true - especially if they appear to be supported by parents or other adult authority figures. As a result, many children may grow to adulthood with false and possibly overly-restrictive worldviews that they cannot easily shed. Doctrines taught to individuals as children can become foundational for them. Hence, even if there is no evidence for the truth of these doctrines, by our usual standards of evidence for other things, it can become almost impossible to shift people from them — or for them to free themselves. So why not ban all images or discussions of gods, devils, and so on, if young children might be exposed to them?
Such a question merits the answer that no liberal society can be expected to adopt a policy of officially deeming the exposure of young children to religious ideas to be harmful. Any attempt to adopt this as a policy would fly in the face of traditional ideas of freedom of religion, which have included the freedom of adults to bring up their children within the sect of their choice. Yet the argument that this actually is harmful appears to be far more cogent than the argument that children are harmed merely from exposure to, say, images of naked human beings, or to much of the wide range of material that can be described as "indecent".
I suggest that, if the state seriously wished to protect children from harm that results merely from being exposed to certain kinds of communications, rather than responding to ill-informed moral panic about the Internet, it would need to conduct extensive psychological and sociological research. Even then, it would have a great deal of difficulty determining an objective standard of "harm" — and if it somehow succeeded, the product of its investigations might well be surprising.
In all the circumstances that I've referred to, concerns about harms to children merely from exposure to certain images or ideas justify only a relatively minor role for the state. It may, as I've stated, have a significant paternalistic role in protecting children from advertising for dangerous products such as cigarettes. Beyond that, it can establish systems that give assistance to parents in making decisions about what material they should allow their young children to watch, read, or access on television and the Internet, but it is questionable how much genuine good the government and its agencies can really do where the Internet is concerned. There is no substitute for parental supervision, and concerns about Internet nasties should not be used as an excuse for sweeping censorship of communications between adults. Cool consideration of these issues strengthens, rather than weakens, the case for constitutional protection of freedom of speech.
I am prepared to accept that the state has an interest in paternalistic protection of children from propaganda for dangerous commercial products such as cigarettes. But what other kinds of harm might be relevant? Before banning speech on this basis, a legislature would presumably need to be armed with studies of what kinds of material produce feelings of distress, shock, nausea, and so on, or even psychological trauma of the kind that could be evidenced by, for example, phobias, withdrawal, or nightmares.
While more needs to be known, I suggest the following as a first approximation. The kinds of speech and expression that are likely to produce distress, or even psychological trauma, if shown to young children, might include depictions of cruelty to animals, depictions of sympathetic human or animal characters being killed, and supernatural threats (such as threats of hellfire or divine vengeance). Obviously, it would difficult to frame legislation that is directed at protecting children from exposure to this sort of material, though classification codes that offer advice to parents, rather than attempting to ban speech and expression outright, may be of some value in this respect. Furthermore, it is not obvious that using an age such as 18 would be appropriate if the idea is to protect young children from distress or psychological trauma: i.e., it is not at all clear that any particular material is likely to have such an impact on, say, teenagers, any more than on adults.
What counts as "harm" to children outside the area of distress or psychological trauma might also depend on the beliefs and values of the person alleging the harm. A conventional moralist driven by Augustinian ideas that the body and its functions are shameful might find something "harmful" in any exposure of children to nudity — but such contestable ideas should receive no official support in a liberal society.
By contrast, somebody with very different beliefs and values might consider it more harmful to expose young children to traditional religious ideas. It may be that ideas of gods, devils, spirits, and so on possess a psychological attraction for human beings that is out of proportion to the actual evidence that any such things exist (perhaps because we have evolved with a tendency to over-attribute agency or purpose to the phenomena around us). Children may be especially prone to absorbing such ideas - even though they are neither well-evidenced nor actually true - especially if they appear to be supported by parents or other adult authority figures. As a result, many children may grow to adulthood with false and possibly overly-restrictive worldviews that they cannot easily shed. Doctrines taught to individuals as children can become foundational for them. Hence, even if there is no evidence for the truth of these doctrines, by our usual standards of evidence for other things, it can become almost impossible to shift people from them — or for them to free themselves. So why not ban all images or discussions of gods, devils, and so on, if young children might be exposed to them?
Such a question merits the answer that no liberal society can be expected to adopt a policy of officially deeming the exposure of young children to religious ideas to be harmful. Any attempt to adopt this as a policy would fly in the face of traditional ideas of freedom of religion, which have included the freedom of adults to bring up their children within the sect of their choice. Yet the argument that this actually is harmful appears to be far more cogent than the argument that children are harmed merely from exposure to, say, images of naked human beings, or to much of the wide range of material that can be described as "indecent".
I suggest that, if the state seriously wished to protect children from harm that results merely from being exposed to certain kinds of communications, rather than responding to ill-informed moral panic about the Internet, it would need to conduct extensive psychological and sociological research. Even then, it would have a great deal of difficulty determining an objective standard of "harm" — and if it somehow succeeded, the product of its investigations might well be surprising.
In all the circumstances that I've referred to, concerns about harms to children merely from exposure to certain images or ideas justify only a relatively minor role for the state. It may, as I've stated, have a significant paternalistic role in protecting children from advertising for dangerous products such as cigarettes. Beyond that, it can establish systems that give assistance to parents in making decisions about what material they should allow their young children to watch, read, or access on television and the Internet, but it is questionable how much genuine good the government and its agencies can really do where the Internet is concerned. There is no substitute for parental supervision, and concerns about Internet nasties should not be used as an excuse for sweeping censorship of communications between adults. Cool consideration of these issues strengthens, rather than weakens, the case for constitutional protection of freedom of speech.
Voices of Disbelief on "Life Matters" - Radio National
Tomorrow morning, at 9 am Sydney/Melbourne time, Radio National's "Life Matters" program will have an episode on disbelief based around 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists. I'll be a guest on the program, as will some other contributors to the book (Jack Dann, Philip Kitcher, Emma Tom, Sean Williams). I gather that one theme is likely to be what can replace the role of religion (in providing community and a structured understanding of the world) for those who need it. There will be a talk-back component, and the show will go for an entire hour. Do tune in if you have time.
Here's a frequency guide for major Australian centres:
Adelaide 729AM
Brisbane 792AM
Canberra 846AM
Darwin 657AM
Gold Coast 90.1FM
Hobart 585AM
Melbourne 621AM
Newcastle 1512AM
Perth 810AM
Sydney 576AM
Here's a frequency guide for major Australian centres:
Adelaide 729AM
Brisbane 792AM
Canberra 846AM
Darwin 657AM
Gold Coast 90.1FM
Hobart 585AM
Melbourne 621AM
Newcastle 1512AM
Perth 810AM
Sydney 576AM
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Chained to the Alien
My good pal Damien Broderick has a new book out. He modestly describes himself as having selected the material, or some such thing, rather than as being the editor. That leaves the rest of us with material in it as his co-authors, sort of ... but actually, he's done a lot of new editorial work even though it's essentially a reprint anthology.
Entitled Chained to the Alien: The Best of Australian Science Fiction Review (Second Series), the book is exactly what its sub-title says, Damien's selection of the best material from the legendary 1986-1991 incarnation of ASFR. Yay!
Okay, this might be getting confusing, so let's go back a step. In the mid-1980s some Australian science fiction fans with literary interests came to the conclusion, semi-independently, that a really good, regular critical zine was needed here in Australia. Though Van Ikin and Bruce Gillespie were publishing excellent material, in Science Fiction: A Review of Speculative Literature and SF Commentary respectively, their contributions were not regular or frequent. In the upshot, a group of us got together to form a somewhat anarchistic editorial collective to run a new magazine that revived the name and some of the feel of the 1960s zine Australian Science Fiction Review (we used the name by permission and involved people from the 1960s magazine, notably John Bangsund who was given a regular column).
The editorial collective was originally, in alphabetical order, Jenny Blackford, Russell Blackford, John Foyster, Lucy Sussex, and Yvonne Rouseau. Lucy later dropped out, about the same time that Janeen Webb joined, though those events were not directly related. After about six years some of us eventually burned out, but during that period we set the pace as possibly the best zine of its kind in the world. The zine was widely distributed not only in Australia but internationally, and it attracted a subscriber list that was something of a science fiction Who's Who. Our editorial approach influenced other editors, notably those of the much-admired New York Review of Science Fiction, which was founded a bit later than ASFR(2) and is still going strong.
Local science fiction fandom in Australia seemed rather ambivalent about what we were doing - I'm sure that some fans thought we were "up ourselves" - and we only ever won one Ditmar Award for "Best Fanzine". All the same, there was a period when we were somewhat lionised at overseas science fiction conventions for the quality of our magazine.
It's wonderful to see a selection of the work published in ASFR(2) now being released in book form. Damien has written a new introduction and has worked with the authors to make a few modest but deft edits (usually where something was anachronistic or likely to puzzle an American audience [edit: to avoid confusion, the book is being published in the US by Borgo Press]). Some notes have been added, where authors reflect on their contributions twenty or so years later. Unfortunately, we have lost two of the main contributors since ASFR(2) ceased publication - George Turner and John Foyster - while Lucy Sussex apparently has a more jaded view than the rest of us and was not interested in Damien's project. Still, the outcome is a very nice package with something like 80,000 words of the most astute and lively critical writing of the era.
I'm gloating somewhat that the book contains nearly 30,000 words of my own work - which reflects the fact that an enormous amount of my energy went into ASFR(2) during its run, especially in its first three or four years. I twice won the William Atheling Award for Criticism and Review for this material (in 1987 and 1989), and I'm still proud of my work, even though it reads, to some extent, as if written by someone else. Well, in a sense it was - the young literary critic of twenty or more years ago has had a lot of experiences since then; I've doubtless changed in many ways that go beyond the grey hair and a few extra kilos. (Apart from anything else, I've picked up three degrees since then, including a second Ph.D, and have had several books published.)
All the same, these were important and intense years in my life ... but the intellectual contribution that I made during them has been largely lost from view. It's incredibly pleasing to see some of it now reappearing; to be honest, it's actually a bit like getting back some of those "lost" years.
I must, however, admit that this book has a much narrower appeal than 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists, the volume I've recently edited with Udo Schuklenk. Unlike the situation with 50 Voices of Disbelief, I can't claim that Chained to the Alien is of general interest and that it should appeal to just about anybody. It does, however, contain a lot of entertaining critical writing, not just by me but also by Damien, by George Turner, Bruce Gillespie, most of the other members of the collective, and many others who made contributions from time to time. Anyone who is interested in science fiction as a field for reflection and study, not just a source of light entertainment, will probably enjoy Chained to the Alien and find much to think about.
This is the work that won us praise from some of the biggest names in the science fiction field (Samuel R. Delany, Ursula Le Guin, Gregory Benford, etc.), and it gives an insight into how science fiction was viewed and discussed during an exciting period.
I hope it finds a new audience.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
No clean feed
Australia's federal government has decided to introduce legislation that will give it potentially sweeping control of information available to Australians via the Internet, using a system of technologically-based censorship. As announced, the legislation will require all ISPs to block material that has been refused classification in other countries (one might ask exactly which countries the government has in mind here). An "independent" body, so we are told, will determine which sites are rated as RC for "refused classification".
Although the government has said that this initiative is not intended to curtail freedom of speech, that is surely an Orwellian claim. Even if the speech that is initially blocked has very little social value, an initiative such as this is open to abuse. If successful, it will enable future censorship of whatever categories of speech might elicit moral panic from time to time indefinitely into the future. Legislatures will have free rein to prevent Australians from viewing categories of material on the Internet whenever this suits populist expediency.
Over time, we could see any number of categories of websites added to the list - gambling sites, sites engaging in robust debate over religious issues, sites advocating the legalisation of euthanasia or certain drugs. Once it's established that we have such a system, the question of which material will or will not be filtered out becomes a live political one, with the potential for future political platforms that involve quite sweeping bans, on the basis of any of the great variety of views as to what is good for us. All sorts of moralising nannies will vie for political power and influence, attempting to control what we are allowed to read and see.
Already, we see a certain amount of jockeying by individual politicians to get additional categories of websites - such as legal gambling sites - banned. The managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, Jim Wallace has issued a statement claiming the government's report has "proven the technological principle [of filtering] can be extended to deal with other harmful X and R-rated material on the internet."
There is no limit to the ways in which the proposed system could be expanded as the electoral cycles roll on, and there is certainly no known limit to the kinds of material that can produce panic in the press and the community, as we saw last year when some relatively innocuous artistic photographs by Bill Henson became a focus for absurd controversy. There is infinite scope for "scope creep". Once an initiative like this gets started, no short-term reassurances can be relied upon. Nobody can know where the new censorship system might be driven over time by the many varieties of populists, moralists, and well-meaning (but misguided) paternalists that proliferate in all electorates. It has to be stopped in its tracks right from the beginning.
This frightening development powerfully underscores the need for some mechanism that inhibits the powers of governments in Australia to interfere with the speech and expression of Australian citizens. If, for political reasons, it is out of the question to introduce new constitutionally-entrenched limits on government power to abridge freedom of speech in Australia, then another mechanism must be found if at all possible. Meanwhile, I urge my readers to join in protests against this development. Please oppose it using all legal and peaceful means available.
Although the government has said that this initiative is not intended to curtail freedom of speech, that is surely an Orwellian claim. Even if the speech that is initially blocked has very little social value, an initiative such as this is open to abuse. If successful, it will enable future censorship of whatever categories of speech might elicit moral panic from time to time indefinitely into the future. Legislatures will have free rein to prevent Australians from viewing categories of material on the Internet whenever this suits populist expediency.
Over time, we could see any number of categories of websites added to the list - gambling sites, sites engaging in robust debate over religious issues, sites advocating the legalisation of euthanasia or certain drugs. Once it's established that we have such a system, the question of which material will or will not be filtered out becomes a live political one, with the potential for future political platforms that involve quite sweeping bans, on the basis of any of the great variety of views as to what is good for us. All sorts of moralising nannies will vie for political power and influence, attempting to control what we are allowed to read and see.
Already, we see a certain amount of jockeying by individual politicians to get additional categories of websites - such as legal gambling sites - banned. The managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, Jim Wallace has issued a statement claiming the government's report has "proven the technological principle [of filtering] can be extended to deal with other harmful X and R-rated material on the internet."
There is no limit to the ways in which the proposed system could be expanded as the electoral cycles roll on, and there is certainly no known limit to the kinds of material that can produce panic in the press and the community, as we saw last year when some relatively innocuous artistic photographs by Bill Henson became a focus for absurd controversy. There is infinite scope for "scope creep". Once an initiative like this gets started, no short-term reassurances can be relied upon. Nobody can know where the new censorship system might be driven over time by the many varieties of populists, moralists, and well-meaning (but misguided) paternalists that proliferate in all electorates. It has to be stopped in its tracks right from the beginning.
This frightening development powerfully underscores the need for some mechanism that inhibits the powers of governments in Australia to interfere with the speech and expression of Australian citizens. If, for political reasons, it is out of the question to introduce new constitutionally-entrenched limits on government power to abridge freedom of speech in Australia, then another mechanism must be found if at all possible. Meanwhile, I urge my readers to join in protests against this development. Please oppose it using all legal and peaceful means available.
Settling in ... but still those 80 boxes to unpack
The place is looking a bit less like a bombsite, but we are now tending to slow down on all the unpacking. There are lots of other issues associated with the move, and I'll probably still not be blogging at length for the next few days.
One issue is that I've had to migrate my website a couple of times in recent months. The correct website is now:
http://randjblackford.customer.netspace.net.au/russellindex.htm
Or you can reach this simply from:
http://www.russellblackford.com
While I'm focused on moving and settling in another city I am, however, concerned today at the current situation with internet censorship in Australia. This follows the latest government announcement. Stay tuned for more thoughts on that not-so-small problem.
One issue is that I've had to migrate my website a couple of times in recent months. The correct website is now:
http://randjblackford.customer.netspace.net.au/russellindex.htm
Or you can reach this simply from:
http://www.russellblackford.com
While I'm focused on moving and settling in another city I am, however, concerned today at the current situation with internet censorship in Australia. This follows the latest government announcement. Stay tuned for more thoughts on that not-so-small problem.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
On the need for defamation law reform
There is a narrow area where the law should protect the reputations of individuals from lies that could ruin their careers or lead to their social ostracism. This is based on the fact that human beings are essentially social animals. If an individual's good reputation in the society where she lives, and on which she depends economically and psychologically, is destroyed, that is a significant injury. Arguably, this should extend to true revelations to the public about individuals' private lives: the mass media can be experienced as intrusive and powerful organisations, capable of oppressing individual citizens, no matter how wealthy or prominent.
All this conceded, the law of defamation in its current form is absurdly overprotective. Beyond the narrow areas where it is legitimate to protect individuals from social ostracism or the unfair destruction of careers, robust public debate should be permitted. This includes the acceptance of harsh criticism and satire - especially when these are aimed at the policies and public activities (not the private lives) of public officials and candidates for public office.
It should go without saying, I hope, that it also includes criticism of ideas, doctrines, institutions, etc., though of course there can be some grey areas, as when a particular individual is closely associated with the policies adopted by an institution.
If you support restoring some balance in the UK jurisdiction - which affects us all, as we can all be sued there if our material is published in the UK - maybe start by having a look here. Then think about signing the associated petition.
You might then want to consider free speech activism in your own jurisdiction. Free speech is under attack from many sides, and there is a shortage of strong, articulate advocates on its behalf.
All this conceded, the law of defamation in its current form is absurdly overprotective. Beyond the narrow areas where it is legitimate to protect individuals from social ostracism or the unfair destruction of careers, robust public debate should be permitted. This includes the acceptance of harsh criticism and satire - especially when these are aimed at the policies and public activities (not the private lives) of public officials and candidates for public office.
It should go without saying, I hope, that it also includes criticism of ideas, doctrines, institutions, etc., though of course there can be some grey areas, as when a particular individual is closely associated with the policies adopted by an institution.
If you support restoring some balance in the UK jurisdiction - which affects us all, as we can all be sued there if our material is published in the UK - maybe start by having a look here. Then think about signing the associated petition.
You might then want to consider free speech activism in your own jurisdiction. Free speech is under attack from many sides, and there is a shortage of strong, articulate advocates on its behalf.
Latest on the move
Normal transmission on this blog will return eventually, I promise!
We have now moved fully from Melbourne to Newcastle. We had the removalists in on Wednesday, and they came back for some last things - notably the bed we'd slept in - on Thursday morning. We drove up on Thursday, arriving about 9.30 or 10.00 pm, and our stuff arrived on Friday - first of all our furniture and something like70 or 80 boxes (of which about 60 remain unpacked) 100 boxes (of which about 80 remain unpacked), and then Felix late in the afternoon.
It's now pretty chaotic here, with the furniture in roughly the right places, most of the kitchen stuff and computer stuff unpacked, but most of the rest still in boxes. We don't even have enough shelves for all the books, as a lot were in built-in shelves in our Melbourne place. All this means that I'll be looking on long blog posts as a bit of a luxury for some time to come, and they will be fairly rare (not totally extinct, however).
Over the next few days, we'll work through some more of the boxes, and buy some large items that we decided to replace rather than transport - e.g. we now need a new washing machine. We'll also be catching up with friends and loved ones. It's all exciting, but yes, there's plenty of chaos to try to turn into order.
Edited for recount of boxes.
We have now moved fully from Melbourne to Newcastle. We had the removalists in on Wednesday, and they came back for some last things - notably the bed we'd slept in - on Thursday morning. We drove up on Thursday, arriving about 9.30 or 10.00 pm, and our stuff arrived on Friday - first of all our furniture and something like
It's now pretty chaotic here, with the furniture in roughly the right places, most of the kitchen stuff and computer stuff unpacked, but most of the rest still in boxes. We don't even have enough shelves for all the books, as a lot were in built-in shelves in our Melbourne place. All this means that I'll be looking on long blog posts as a bit of a luxury for some time to come, and they will be fairly rare (not totally extinct, however).
Over the next few days, we'll work through some more of the boxes, and buy some large items that we decided to replace rather than transport - e.g. we now need a new washing machine. We'll also be catching up with friends and loved ones. It's all exciting, but yes, there's plenty of chaos to try to turn into order.
Edited for recount of boxes.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Abstract of paper on radical life extension
The following is the abstract of my paper "Moral pluralism versus the total view: why Singer is wrong about radical life extension", just published in The Journal of Medical Ethics :
Peter Singer has argued that we should not proceed with a hypothetical life-extension drug, based on a scenario in which developing the drug would fail to achieve the greatest sum of happiness over time. However, this is the wrong test. If we ask, more simply, which policy would be more benevolent, we reach a different conclusion from Singer’s: even given his (admittedly questionable) scenario, development of the drug should go ahead. Singer’s rigorous utilitarian position pushes him in the direction of an implausible “total view” utilitarianism when it encounters the problems presented by certain thought experiments. A more pluralistic account of the nature of morality promises to solve these problems, and in this case it reaches a benevolent recommendation on life-extension technology.
I argue that, given the kind of scenario stipulated by Singer, we should proceed to develop the life-extension drug.
Peter Singer has argued that we should not proceed with a hypothetical life-extension drug, based on a scenario in which developing the drug would fail to achieve the greatest sum of happiness over time. However, this is the wrong test. If we ask, more simply, which policy would be more benevolent, we reach a different conclusion from Singer’s: even given his (admittedly questionable) scenario, development of the drug should go ahead. Singer’s rigorous utilitarian position pushes him in the direction of an implausible “total view” utilitarianism when it encounters the problems presented by certain thought experiments. A more pluralistic account of the nature of morality promises to solve these problems, and in this case it reaches a benevolent recommendation on life-extension technology.
I argue that, given the kind of scenario stipulated by Singer, we should proceed to develop the life-extension drug.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Apocalypse now
Removalists arrive in an hour. Packing and loading take place today, except for very some last things in the morning. Truck drives up to Newcastle tomorrow, as do we. Almost time to say farewell to Melbourne, though we'll doubtless still be spending a lot of our time down here for various reasons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)