Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Richard Dawkins, Eugenics, Conflicting Principles, and Political Reality
With a tweet that spawned a thousand Ricochet threads, Richard Dawkins really stepped in it last week.
The would-be avatar of all things atheist then issued an “It’s-not-me-it’s-you” style apology soon thereafter; this said more about the man’s venal nature than his underlying argument. Unfortunately, people’s first instinct seemed to be to prove Godwin’s Law in the first iteration of the argument in their haste to denounce Dawkins and his admittedly tactless 140 characters.
This is demonstrative of the fact that any given thought which is much more complicated than “Ate at Chipotle. Was delicious!” which you’re considering transferring from your brain to Twitter should probably just stay there.
Due to this truncated thought being exposed to the cold examination of millions of critical eyes, the accusations started at “eugenics” and predictably devolved from there. Perhaps it helps to start with definitions:
eugenics / noun
1. the study of methods of improving the quality of the human race, esp by selective breeding
I certainly don’t think that Dawkins’ underlying intent was to advocate for a ruthless cull of the gene pool of untermensch – I think he was artlessly making an appeal to a form of utilitarianism, which has already been expressed by the greater public by the fact that around of 90% of parents who receive the prenatal diagnosis of Down’s Syndrome in their fetus choose to do precisely what Dawkins had the temerity to point out: abort and try again. For that reason alone, I think we can set aside any nefarious intent on Dawkins’ part. Even if there were, it certainly isn’t Dawkins himself who is personally responsible for these individual actions, and I seriously doubt his ability to influence the public at large anyways.
This isn’t eugenics in the sense that there is a centralized authority who is making decisions about who gets to live, breed or die: this is a Hayekian, emergent-order phenomenon, where parents are making decisions they believe to be in their interests. They are doing what they’re doing because these potential babies are failing to pass the market test which these parents are imposing. Nobody has to tell these parents what to do; they’re doing it themselves.
This has been possible thanks to the same kind of technological advancements that have made our lives cheaper, more efficient, and with more choices in so many other fields. Applied to reproduction, people have significantly more agency, up to and including how many children they have, when they have them, and those children’s quality of life. Yes, I chose that term intentionally, because the reality is that even breeding (just like dating) at this point acts like a market and is subject to incentives which can be measured.
Why do many people react to the decision to have children as though it were a market? Because people have choices. Starting largely with advent of cheap and easy contraception, people could choose to delay or specifically time when they have children, because the decision have a child has immense consequences in today’s world. A recent study emerged which pegged the average cost of raising a child to the age of 18 at $245,000. That’s $13,600/yr or $1,134/mo; one heck of an investment. There are economies of scale as the number of children goes up, but the initial cost is rather steep. This cost also assumes the fact that the child is cognitively normal and doesn’t have any extraordinary physical handicaps. What justifies this cost? The answer of course is that people place a value upon their children which is higher than the cost of the investment, but that value is not infinite.
What about those other children, the ones who are not cognitively normal or do have extraordinary physical handicaps? According to links provided by Down Syndrome Help, the cost of caring for a child with a severe cognitive disability throughout their life is about $3.2 million. Needless to say, this is a cost which most people blanch at given the fact that they may not earn that much money in their entire life. As a result of this immense cost, and the perceived loss of quality of life that people anticipate as a result of having to provide lifelong care for an adult child, people frequently avail themselves of the opportunity to “Try again” for good or ill.
I imagine that this line of reasoning has a lot of readers choking on their coffee in their haste to denounce me as a ruthless and evil person bent upon the pre-birth destruction of each person whose net contribution to society is less than $0. Rest assured, that is not the point of this, so let me lay my cards on the table.
As a matter of principle, I am personally opposed to abortion, especially abortion of convenience, or ex-post-facto birth control. If you question my commitment, I should say that — against my better judgment — I married my ex-wife rather than see her carry out her threat to abort my daughter at the behest of her mother. I want to head off immediately any line of argument from any person who thinks that I “lack empathy” or “disrespect the lives of the innocent.” I made my choices, for good or ill, and I have lived with them.
I also have never been given a choice like the one that many people face when given the moral quandary of how to proceed with a potential child who is either going to be very sick or debilitated. I can’t say that I would have the moral fiber to withstand such a choice, and I’m glad that I never had to. It is equally obvious to me that given the choice between two tragedies that the evidence points to the fact that the vast majority of people prefer the outcome which they feel they have control over and benefits them both in the short and long term.
Placing myself in that position as a conservative, I could imagine my principles being tugged in two different directions. My personal commitment to preserving the rights of this potential person is opposed by my desire that people should contribute positively to society. While I can certainly guarantee that my contribution to society through my children, taxes and work will far exceed what I use, I am also certain that if I had a child with those sorts of cognitive disabilities or handicaps that this balance would flip. Add to this that because I don’t have the resources to completely cover the costs for that person, I am perversely incentivized to not abort that child precisely because I would not have to bear the costs which that child would impose, because they end up being collectivized through our social welfare system.
Unfortunately, I think conservatives are pinioned between these two mutually exclusive positions: on the one hand, we don’t want people to abort their children; on the other, we want people to bear personal responsibility for their choices. Rigid adherence to both principles would require of people that they simultaneously carry to term all children (no matter how sick) and to then bear any and all costs of that decision (no matter how crushing). I don’t feel like it is logically consistent for us to require both of people — and it certainly smacks of a sort of high-handed disregard for accident — when having children is frequently made at the margin.
As an acolyte of Thomas Sowell, I am convinced of the truth of the “Constrained Vision” of human nature and resigned to the “Tragic View” of life. That means that frequently in life we are faced not with choices between “Good” and “Bad,” but more frequently “Bad” and “Worse.” This is one such situation.
Where the rubber meets the road on this is in our expression of public policy. Any fair appraisal of government’s role when trying to balance the bad and worse while looking at contraception and abortion should tell you that the technology which gives us power over when and how to bring life into the world is a Genie which cannot be completely stuffed back into the bottle. We can no more do that than we can undo the technological advances of online dating, for good or ill.
To do so would empower the government to a degree where I believe conservatives would be deeply uncomfortable if it were any other aspect of life. Imagine if you would a flat, government-enforced ban on abortion. How could we ensure compliance? Perhaps women should provide monthly evidence of menstruation, with failure to provide such evidence initiating a pregnancy investigation, resulting in mandatory monthly checkups to ensure that a potential fetus has not been aborted? If that woman is pregnant, what happens in the event of miscarriage? Must the coroner be dispatched to ensure that a wrongful death has not occurred? And what happens if such a determination is made? This scenario quickly descends into madness or a police state. Conservatives should disavow policies that would grant the government such power.
So what can we do?
The best we can hope for at this point is containment. That means we should engage in moral persuasion rather than pursue broad public policy remedies. Coupled with the the realization that, just because you or I wouldn’t make a particular decision regarding how we would order our affairs given an extraordinarily difficult set of circumstances, that such a decision is not universally agreed-upon and we might just make some progress.
If you or I would struggle with what to do — even given a strong moral compass — keep in mind that it’s no less hard for other people who are also balancing a panoply of interests, and do not view their situation as a monopolar moral calculation. I’m not qualified to make up those peoples’ minds for them a priori; none of us is. Liberty can be abused, but empowering the government to impose our will can also work at cross purposes to the rest of the Conservative agenda.
Published in General
Why are you being so darn reasonable? I was really afraid that I was going to be dropping a nuclear thread on Ricochet when I penned this, but alas…
Anyways, your concession that we don’t live in a perfect world where principles don’t conflict is about where I was aiming.
Majestyk (#19):
I am fully pro-life, but am willing to acknowledge that the pro-life movement, though making substantial progress, still has a ways to go. There is much work ahead to persuade more American voters to fully value human life.
I do not want to change any of the language in the GOP platform plank on human life. However, I am willing to support GOP candidates of any position, since we can make much more progress on all fronts as part of a winning team.
What concerns me is when “RINO” leaders and pundits undercut pro-life Republicans. I, and other conservative pro-life voters, find this off-putting. It dampens our enthusiasm. When grass-roots campaign support and high turnout are needed, it will be a huge problem for the GOP if they have alienated our essential part of their base.
What is the most common Christian belief? That there is a sin hierarchy or that all sins are of equal level?
The threshold problem with the argument in the OP is that it assumes that sex is a morally neutral act. This is false on its face. Whenever a couple engages in sexual intercourse they are inviting a baby–even if they intend otherwise by usuing ABC. This being the case, they also assume a moral duty to the child conceived and, if conservative principles as set out in the OP, that we want people to be responsible for themselves, then the couple who engages in sex ought be expected to assume responsibility for the baby.The fact that the child has birth defects is irrelevant. That, too, is a risk in any act of sexual intercourse. It is a decidedly non-conservative approach for parents to shift responsibility to the child by killing it. In doing so parents impose an immeasurable burden on that child–death–because the parents refuse to accept that responsibility.
In the OP, the argument is made that it is “high handed to disregard accident.” Yet, the argument is that parents should be free to disregard accidents of conception by killing a burdensome child. In essence the argument ignores the responsibility of the efficient actors.
A second problem with the post is the utilitarian dilemma. Virtually by definition utilitarianism can have no absolute limiting principle. That is, a pure cost benefit analysis cannot be limited by saying, for example, that killing a child is unlawful once it is born. This is an illogical conclusion. First, if cost/benefit is the measure, then it scarcely follows that rights should be afforded that are denied the unborn. A child may suffer profound injuries during birth, a stroke for example, and thus be a huge burden on parents. What rational basis is there to demand the parents care for the child? It seems perfectly reasonable to either let the child die, or to kill it, to avoid the high costs. The same can be said for those stricken by injury or disease later in life. They, too, impose heavy costs, e.g., a parent with Alzheimers. Children may have such affection for the parent that they will provide care, but they may also have limited resources to do so. The state could step in to care for the sick person, but that is to shift the burden from offspring to the state.
A third problem is that utilitarianism is grounded in the concept that we can know the future, and thus develop some kind of measure to weigh costs and benefits. Bentham spilled a great deal of ink trying to devise a mathematical method of determing costs and benefits. His principle difficulty lies in the reality that the future cannot be known. In the case of a Down’s Syndrome child it may be abstractly possible to predict financial costs, but it is impossible to predict future benefits the child may bring. For example, suppose such a child goes to work (as many of them do) in a manufacturing facility. For example, my brother-in-law managed a furniture business for the DD. There is no way to predict which DD will be able to enjot a productive life. Utilitarianism attempts to make such predictions, but to successfully do so is impossible. One could argue that, relative to costs to parents making furniture does not offset those costs. However, given the cost of raising “normal” kids, the same could be said for a person of average intellect who grows up to make furniture. Utilitarianism is a moral system grounded in the unknowable.
Majestyk sets up a false dilemma. It is not either kill the baby or pay all the backbreaking medical bills yourself. The middle way is charity. True charity, not government charity. The Lions, Optimists, Elks, Knights of Columbus, Masons, Shriners and most churches were in the business of supporting the family in need. This is how it worked in the first have of the 20th century, we formed voluntary organizations that gave to the truly needy. But where are the new St. Jude hospitals? Killed by the over reaching state.
Majestyk – I appreciate your comment in #58. That said, I think I’ve been discussing the relative merits of the argument despite my own special needs situation. See in particular my comment #33 in which I believe you present a false dichotomy in your “any and all” characterization. Those who advocate, or those doctors who place pressure on parents to abort Downs Syndrome fetuses seem to be doing so more on predominantly economic and utilitarian grounds, so it begs the question at what price is society willing to pay to support these children and their parents or should they feel guilty from society at large for bringing these children to term…because it’s bad for the economy?
The utilitarian argument I find a dangerous slippery slope not too dissimilar to a false socialist argument that certain people shouldn’t make so much money because it creates a disadvantage for others…so the final arbiter is someone in government dictating what is utilitarian and fair.
In order to promote the moral, ethical argument the utilitarian argument needs to be shown for its lack of humanity. I think Hannah Arendt had much to say about that.
This is an important discussion to have because with advances in genetic screening, I don’t see how the utilitarian argument doesn’t advance…regrettably. This nation has already aborted in excess of 50 million potential human lives. Advances in science will provide justification for aborting more. Perhaps in the future, someone of Stephen Hawking’s considerable intellect will be aborted because of the potential that he or she would more than likely develop ALS or a variant thereof.
I think the other factor not talked about is that Down Syndrome kids and adults are noticeably different than others, so whether we admit it or not there is a visible social stigma attached to them even though most of them are warm and loving individuals. I think more tolerance of what the potential can be for these folks is more critical than rationalizing how they we can prevent them from becoming members of society in the first place. Just saying.
A point on eugenics:
Eugenics has always presented to the public very clear and rational arguments for its need, and because of its often sound theoretical basis it has often captured the imagination of those gifted enough to understand its goals, but naive enough to not recognize its perils. The peril of eugenics is not that it will not work. Far from it. As a biologist I think today we have more means at our disposal than ever to make it work in the manner in which we intend. No, the danger of eugenics is that it promotes a purely materialistic and economic view of humanity. The danger of eugenics is that it will dehumanize us. This danger exists whether it is implemented from the top down or bottom up.
Top down eugenics is thoroughly discredited by its historical link to violent racism. But, in today’s modern world bottom up eugenics is bubbling up with promises of a brighter future and happier children, so long as they are the right kind of children. Bottom up eugenics is helping to reinforce all our least charitable and humane instincts by offering us a simple way of avoiding these “imperfect” children.
Jewish law (halacha) holds that the fetus is not fully human until the majority of the body (which would include the head) has emerged from the mother’s body. Not at conception. Until then, abortion is seen as a bad thing, a serious thing, in many cases something which is not permitted. (And there is a lot of response literature on the topic in general.) There is also a substantive difference between the status of the fetus before and after (I need to check) the 30th day of the pregnancy, up to which time there is more leniency regarding the permissibility of abortion.
However, my liberal Jewish brethren often distort this tradition, and hold the right to abortion on the level that I would hold the belief in the divine origin of the Torah. There is an halachic position to the effect that the fetus is “like a limb of its mother”, however, we aren’t allowed to amputate a limb simply because we feel like it.
(cont.) One is not allowed to mutilate or tattoo the body either, and even after the spirit has left, we are very stringent about the proper disposal of body parts and blood. Halacha holds that the body itself belongs to G-d; there is no blanket “freedom of choice” in the Liberal sense.
According to our tradition and Laws, the life of the mother always comes first. In a case in which the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life, the fetus is seen as a rodef, a pursuer with intent to do harm, and hence may, and in some cases even must, be destroyed.
Since abortion is a grave and complex matter, it is not a decision to which one may come on one’s own; a knowledgeable halachic authority must be consulted. Ordinary rabbis will defer this decision to one with greater authority, and no one chooses abortion happily. It is always the lesser of evils. There are authorities who hold more strictly against abortion, as well as those who hold more strictly for what they hold to be the protection of the mother.
(cont.) All this is to say that the whole Christian, and especially Catholic, tradition on abortion is in many ways entire alien to us. We are not speaking the same language at all.
However, neither are we utilitarian, nor do we view this within the concept of a woman’s “right”. We do not have “rights” over our own bodies at all. But there are situations in which halachic authorities would hold that a woman may even be obligated to abort a fetus which is seen as a rodef.
This is very interesting. Thanks for putting it up.
Afternoon Mike,
I have a question, if we start with the belief that all humans are sacred and that to cull our human flock dehumanizes us, how do we determine whether our medical efforts are reasonable or are driven by our own emotions. Recently, a nurse ask if my mom was to be classified DNR, when I was a teenager most patients were classified DNR. Our only answer to the nurse’s question was mushy, if there is reasonable hope for her recovery then work to save her, if not let nature take its course. This same question often comes up with babies who have life threatening birth defects. Is there a philosophical way to approach this?
Jim:
That is a very profound question to which I can offer only a tentative answer. Questions of ethics are, for many philosophers, an effort to develop hard rules for human problems. On one side the argument is that life should be preserved at all cost, while on the other extreme life should never be seen as sacred, but only a marginal good subject to cold calculation. Neither of these approaches really treayt ethics as a human science. As a strict rule I would say that it is impermissable to ever use an intrinsically evil means even to achieve a righteous end. Thus, if murder is defined as the intentional taking of an innocent humnanlife, then murder is never allowed.
But this definition contains an inherent ambiguity, the question of intent–a huge bone of contention especially in modern ethics. The only way I can analyze it is to ask whether the proposed course of action in the case of a baby with fatal birth defects is intended to kill as a therapeutic measure effectively a form of euthanasia), as opposed to designed to ease suffering while death takes its natural course.
Cont.
However, even in cases where nature is allowed to take its course, there remains a question of intent, i.e.,is the decision based on the obligations owed to the child, or to relieve the problems of the parents. Because the price paid by the child is death, and hence the loss of all potentiality for him/her, the child’s interests are paramount (I realize this is a disputed question).
I’ve been struggling with this issue for months as I try to find an approach to physician assisted suicide that might serve as a practical compromise. My present focus is in the idea of affection as an Aristotelian Golden Mean to be used to find that compromise. Needless to say I’m still working on it.
Anyway, I’ll come back to this after a little time for reflection. Meanwhile, I’d appreciate your thoughts, Jim, and anyone else’s.
Evening Mike,
Here is my dilemma, I would want Terri Schiavo kept alive until natural causes brought her death and I would want society to cover the expenses when the family’s resources ran low. I know many would view that differently. On the other hand there are expensive medicines and procedures which only extent life a few months, I am reluctant to ask society to help pay for these medicines or procedures. Concerning infants with severe defects, I would prefer to err on the side of attempting to save life even if the likelihood of success is low. The natural temptation is to neglect flawed or chronically ill patients, especially as we get comfortable with seeing certain lives as having less value or quality. However, the emotions of loved ones cause them to ask for the impossible and are as wrong as the coldly clinical utilitarian view , there are many times when fighting against death is not in the patient’s benefit.
My personal experience with the DNR question leaves me wanting more information, current medicine only has bits of information all concerning this one point in time. None of the docs are looking at the global situation concerning the patient’s history and what the patient’s future might be.
At the risk of annoying, I’d like to share this website with info on making end of life decisions from a Catholic standpoint.