Home > Notes from the Underground
I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it.
All of the ephemera that is far too trivial to be bothered with elsewhere on this site or, depending on your point of view, a meta-commentary on it. This ephemera includes, but is not limited to art, music and literature. Most of the content here will be discussed in terms that are as abstract as possible, reality being a singularly overrated concept.
Thursday, February 20, 2003
Junius linked to this interesting article from the New York Times, concerning Peter Singer and disabled rights.
I must admit that the greatest interest this holds for me is the consequences of inferring the logical consequences of one's viewpoints, particularly as I tend to prefer the clarity of black and white positions to dirty shades of grey. For example, I do not agree with the notion of rights on technical grounds (I view 'rights' as a specialised term relating to social contracts and am very unease as to the way it is frequently bastardised to the point of meaninglessness), but I do believe there to be a set of obligations towards those who do not hold rights (into which category I would probably include the insane, animals and children; not the happiest of companions I must admit, but none of these are typically deemed able to fully participate in the social contract). On the whole, I think this is reasonably consistent, but the question of obligations does little to simplify matters (obligations, as much as rights, conflict). For example, the case of parents deliberately engineering a disabled (deaf) child is troubling to me, since I would consider it as essentially being a form of impairment or mutilation. But much the same could be said of engineering children regarding their sexuality, where such questions do not seem as applicable to me; entangling such value judgements from cultural norms seems difficult at best.
As a hypothetical example of what may be possible in not so distant future, if a couple with especially strict religious views were informed that a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality had been detected in their child (the evidence for such a genetic predisposition is unclear, but suggestive), what would be the implications of a decision to alter or leave this (again hypothetical, but bearing in mind that either decision is arguably in line with certain religious norms)? In the former case, the parents would be imposing their prejudices onto something essentially conceived of as a blank canvas, which would accordingly be treated as a means and not an end. In the latter case, the existence of a hypothetical ability to adjust the genetic structure of the infant would ensure that inaction posed as many problems as action; assuming that the child were to grow up sharing his parent's view his upbringing could easly be riddled with self-loathing and a resentment that he had been created thus. The worst of this is that the difficulties may exist regardless of whether Prometheus is bound or unbound.
Update: A debate between Peter Singer and Kenan Malik on the subject of animal rights. This topic is at least a good deal more straightforward to my mind and I am largely in agreement with Malik.
posted by Richard 5:46 pm
