PZ Myers: "Utilitarian argument should be dead."
Offline In a short blog post today, biologist and blogger PZ Myers has made what I think is a genuinely profound observation, and I hope it doesn't get lost in the shuffle.
In the recent controversy involving a nine year old Brazilian girl who was raped and impregnated, the Vatican itself has made a ruling: Fetuses come before people. While this should come as no surprise, I think we should not just brush this aside as one more example of religious nuttery. The Vatican has clearly and emphatically given us proof against one of the most powerful emotional appeals used by apologists -- Humans do not need religion to help provide comfort to people in need.
The utilitarian argument is often the last refuge of the defeated in an argument about religion. There are many people who seem to believe more in belief in god than in god himself. They think that religion is some kind of cement holding humanity together against its own nature. This incident provides a stark rebuttal to the notion.
In case you missed it, a nine year old Brazilian girl was raped by her step father, and became pregnant. Doctors, fearing for her life, performed an abortion. In retaliation for this act of kindness, the Brazilian arm of the Catholic Church excommunicated the mother and the doctors involved in the procedure. The Vatican has since upheld the decision.
The utilitarian argument doesn't hold water. Humans are empathetic without religion. When you superimpose dogma onto an ethical dilemma, you subvert the process of normal human empathy and kindness. Every sane person in the world knows that the responsible thing to do in this situation was save a nine year old girl from living her entire life as the caretaker for living proof of a heinous crime commited against her. As empathetic, rational humans, we can instantly see that a nine year old victim of sexual abuse cannot hope to be a sufficient mother. The step father is certainly not a suitable surrogate caretaker.
Let me make this abundantly clear: The only reason there was any debate about this kindness is religious dogma. Without the unscientific, irrational dogma held by the church, human kindness would have won the day unopposed. Any religious dogma is -- by definition -- not rational and scientific. If it was, we wouldn't call it religious dogma. It would be science (and not dogmatic, by definition).
Myers said it very eloquently: "The utilitarian argument that religion at least provides comfort to people in need ought to be extinct now."
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
I'm not a big fan of labels, but I'll take on one that can fit me if modified at least for a time. I'm not exactly pro-life, as things stand I'm pro-choice. But in an ideal society, I'd be pro-life and proud of it. That's why I took on the moniker.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Realistically, a person burglarizing your house usually doesn't want to add a capital charge of murder to a misdemeanor crime of burglary. But, even though a burglar has no reason to harm me, and I have no reason to think that they will, I'm still allowed to assume the opposite and react accordingly. Even if you have no reason to think that a pregnancy will harm you, the potential still exists so the situation is no different.
So why can I act to mitigate the burglary on the grounds that it is a danger to me financially and perhaps physically, but I cannot act to mitigate the pregnancy for the exact same reasons?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Because the pregnancy could come from the sex whether she consents to the pregnancy or not.
It's different because the buglar was harming you by stealing your stuff, and has committed something illegal.
The fetus on the other hand, hasn't done anything.
Being pregnant isn't illegal, buglary is. The buglar has gone out of his way to harm you, the fetus hasn't
And a burglary can come with opening your window whether you consent to being burgled or not.
It's only called a burglary because the person wants to keep their possessions. Otherwise, if the person would have willingly parted with their stuff then there wouldn't be any harm, and it wouldn't be illegal. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant then they perceive it as harm.
The mistake you're making is that you're comparing a desired pregnancy to a burglary when you should be comparing an undesired pregnancy to a burglary, and a desired one to just giving your possessions away.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
So in the past couple of months, the Catholic Church has proved itself a safe haven for holocaust deniers and child rapists. Any bets on who get into heaven next?
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
The pope?
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!