SUBSCRIBER LOGIN






Search First Things

Advanced Search

RSS

Masthead

Recent Comments

  • De Las Casas: First of all a faulty premise cripples this discussion. It trips over nothing and falls into unreality...
  • Raymond Takashi Swenson: One makes arguments to persuade. Arguments based on a common religious belief are going to...
  • Kevin: Here are the truths from which we can not escape. SSM involves a pledge. It’s a pledge of committed...
  • Truth Unites... and Divides: Tom Gilson to Nikolai Volk: “Wrong. Obviously wrong. Blazingly, glaringly, wrong....
  • Bret Lythgoe: I think that it’s fair to say that we have people on both sides of the SSM “debate”,...
  • Nikolai Volk: Okay, this could help clarify things. Suppose we did what I want the state to do, and not regulate...
  • Archives

    Categories

    Monthly


    « Previous  |Home|  Next »         

    Monday, June 7, 2010, 10:24 AM

    Peter Singer, the rather notorious Princeton ethicist, published a provocative essay in the New York Times blog “Opinionator” proposing that we should consider making this generation the last of the human species.  He pondered what would be wrong with universal sterilization throughout the planet, a planned extinction of the entire race.  Here’s a sample of his musings for the standard of choice for intentional reproduction:

    “How good does life have to be, to make it reasonable to bring a child into the world? Is the standard of life experienced by most people in developed nations today good enough to make this decision unproblematic, in the absence of specific knowledge that the child will have a severe genetic disease or other problem?”

    In all fairness, the essay does conclude with a tepid off-shrugging of the notion, even as it unfolds with great seriousness.

    Perhaps I’m too much of an armchair psychologist, but I have a sense that many public intellectuals think that they are looking through a window when they see the world but are mistaken and are instead looking into a mirror.  What I mean is that when they think that they see something in the world at-large, what they really are seeing is their own life magnified and projected in a way that overshadows reality.

    Singer’s essay is really a commentary on or extension of the thoughts of David Benatar, a South African philosopher whose book “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence,” is, I suppose , the reductio ad absurdum of solipsism (the idea that the self is the only thing knowable or real in the universe).  Check out Singer’s summary of Benatar:

    Benatar also argues that human lives are, in general, much less good than we think they are. We spend most of our lives with unfulfilled desires, and the occasional satisfactions that are all most of us can achieve are insufficient to outweigh these prolonged negative states. If we think that this is a tolerable state of affairs it is because we are, in Benatar’s view, victims of the illusion of pollyannaism. This illusion may have evolved because it helped our ancestors survive, but it is an illusion nonetheless. If we could see our lives objectively, we would see that they are not something we should inflict on anyone.

    Methinks I see a mirror, not a window. 

    Ironically, David Benatar seems to be extending a punitive line of thought to one of Pat Benatar’s hit records from the early 80’s, “Hell Is for Children” (if you follow the link, beware the language in the comments).  The world is filled with suffering and abuse so let’s just kill off the entire species, sort of a communal form of capital punishment.

    I am amazed at how commonly the larger culture keeps wanting to rework Eden.  “Avatar” certainly does this in 3-D cinematic detail.  Most of the cultural conflicts we see played out in the media are rooted in a desire to re-work the effects of the opening chapters of Genesis.  What Singer ponders is really a kind of rhetorical question: What if God had created a garden and then decided not to have peopled it with Adam and his progeny?  I suppose, the thinking goes, that the Fall would not have happened and everything would be a utopian park where the lion and the lamb would sing Kumbaya around a primeval campfire. 

    This discounts, of course, the reality that Nature is thoroughly red in tooth and claw, as Tennyson reminded us, and even if we were no longer a part of this world, death and suffering would still reign supreme.  The Fall explains the violent chaos of this world with precision.

    Amazing, isn’t it, how even the most secular among us wants to return to Eden?   Even if we have to sacrifice the entire species to accomplish it.

    The really cool part about Eden is that grace trumps even the so-called innocence of paradise.  Grace did not result from the Fall, but rather the Fall, in ways that are unfathomable to our finite minds, was a part of the plan that was set in motion before the foundations of the earth (see Ephesians 1:4, 1 Peter 1:20, and several other passages).  Christians don’t want to go back to Eden; we want to live in Jerusalem Celestial, where grace finds its embodiment in the One who, as Isaiah 53:8 prophesied, really would have no descendants of His corporeal body, only adopted children of His blood.

    8 Comments

      Hunter Baker
      June 7th, 2010 | 12:32 pm | #1

      Your comment about nature is critical. The circle of life is a pretty scary thing. It’s not like human absence = paradise.

      We are the finest of the predators, but we are also the sign that there may be something more over yonder horizon.

      Denes House
      June 7th, 2010 | 12:44 pm | #2

      Can I just say that “Hunter Baker” is a great name, embracing both sides of the world of food production?

      Singer’s latest proposal is just another step down his mad, mad road of folly and destruction. He starts from the premise that the purpose of life is personal happiness, and this is where it gets him.

      Mike Austin
      June 7th, 2010 | 2:12 pm | #3

      I think a flaw in Singer’s comments on Benatar is the assumption that for a life to be good and worth living, our desires need to be satisfied.

      Gene Fant
      June 7th, 2010 | 3:39 pm | #4

      Yes, Mike; indeed, one of the tenets of Christianity is that our desires cannot be satisfied, ultimately, by anything in this world. Not only are our desires hopelessly broken but they merely foreshadow the desire for Completion and Satisfaction that is found in our ultimate Completor and Satisfier: Christ. If we gauge our lives by any other measure, we are doomed from the start.

      In any case, it always troubles me when folks use the standard of “happiness” or “developed nations” as their baseline.

      BillT
      June 7th, 2010 | 5:52 pm | #5

      What we need to remember is this. Peter Singer is right. In a world without God, life is a meaningless and often horrifying mess. That we should be the planet’s last generation is a perfectly reasonable response to this. At least it would end all the suffering. Since, in Singer’s view, there is nothing intrinsically valuable about life, no life can be seen as quite preferable to a life lived at anything less than in optimal circumstances.

      At least Peter Singer isn’t deluded about the implications of his atheism. We would be better served if all those who deny the existence of God were this honest about those implications. Most want to have it both ways. They don’t want to accept the existence of God but they want to believe that they still have value. We should applaud Peter Singer for having the intellectual courage to accept and temerity to publicize the inferences his worldview.

      The Mere Stupidity of Peter Singer (Part I) » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog
      June 8th, 2010 | 8:01 am | #6

      [...] Yesterday Wesley Smith and Gene Fant wrote about the latest controversial remarks by ethicist Peter Singer. Because too few people are [...]

      Tweets that mention Reductio Ad Absurdum Strikes Again » Evangel | A First Things Blog -- Topsy.com
      June 8th, 2010 | 7:13 pm | #7

      [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by UnionUniversity, CBEL. CBEL said: Reductio Ad Absurdum Strikes Again http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/06/reductio-ad-absurdum-strikes-again/ [...]

      Jeremy Pierce
      June 10th, 2010 | 10:30 pm | #8

      Except that Singer never endorses any of this. He says that Benatar has written a book arguing this, and he presents Benatar’s reasoning, but then he says he can’t accept it and explains why. He says life is worth living for most people. Singer has plenty of false views, but it’s not exactly fair to him to say that a view he discusses is somehow his just because he presents the view and critiques it. It’s not a rather tepid off-shrugging of the notion, as if he is convinced but then decides not to worry about it. He thinks Benatar is wrong and gives a reason why we should all disagree. He just thinks the questions Benatar asks are good ones worth thinking through, ones we don’t often enough think about.

    Links

    Blogs

    Find Us

    Contact