This is the second post on the review of SHS in the current American Journal of Bioethics. We have already highlighted the positives that Yale University bioethicist found with SHS, and now I would like to reply to his criticisms. Latham writes:
To be clear: This [human exceptionalism] is a world-view, not an argument. Smith is not a philosopher. Do not come to SHS for a clear statement of the justification for his human exceptionalism, or for a rigorous discussion of the methods by which we can ground human rights without consideration of human capacities. Smith is a polemicist, and like any polemicist, he can be maddening.
Well, Secondhand Smokette would agree with that last point. And yes, I am a polemicist, although I hope in the best sense of that term. But that isn’t all I am and I don’t just make assertions, nor do I tub thump and name call. Indeed, I have argued often for the reasons why human exceptionalism is both right philosophically and morally compelled, as well as the necessary predicate to universal human rights. I devote a whole chapter on that issue in the new book on animal rights that will be out in the fall. But Latham is right: I don’t do philosophy per se. I do policy and ethics.
Here I think Latham is completely off base:
Someone could oppose, on principle, the dehydration of Terri Schiavo without minimizing the extent of her disability and without demonizing Michael Schiavo—but Smith is not that person. Someone could oppose the destruction of embryos in research even while recognizing that research’s exciting and unique medical potential—but that is not Smith, either. On SHS, the messy world of facts always magically lines up with the core moral theory.
That’s just not true. First, I never said she wasn’t catastrophically devastated. I wrote there were good reasons to believe that she wasn’t PVS, but more to the point, that it didn’t matter whether she was unconscious or not. Moreover, I didn’t “demonize” Michael Schiavo. I was sarcastic about him, yes. But I pointed out many facts that in my view made him unworthy to be her guardian and in charge of her care. These ranged from his living with another woman he called his “fiance” and having children with her—while still claiming all the rights of a husband—to telling a malpractice jury he would care for her the rest of her (naturally long) life—only to refuse antibiotics so she would die within months of the money being deposited in the bank in 1993, money that he would have inherited. I was more critical of the terrible handling of the case as I saw it by the courts. For facts on what I wrote about this tragic matter, do a search at the Weekly Standard site, where most of these articles were published.
As to ESCR, I never denied that scientists were excited about the field. Indeed, I have always written that this was an ethics debate not a science debate. I have also posted about the advances that have been made in ESCR. I have, however, been very critical of the hype in which the pro side has engaged and focused on advances in human trials with adult stem cell research and otherwise that the MSM and many bioethicist advocates for ESCR tend to downplay or ignore. I have also deconstructed the nonsense that the field has been starved for funds and exposed the junk biology and term redefinition utilized ubiquitously by ESCR proponents to win a political debate, which I have justly called a corruption of science.
Latham then makes a very common complaint made by bioethicists:
Smith’s second-most maddening attribute is his tendency to slap the title “bioethicist” onto people who take positions he disagrees with. If they are really bad, they’re “elite bioethicists” or “utilitarian bioethicists.” Smith normally talks about bioethicists: in more or less the same tone that Charles Dicken’s Mr. Micawber used in describing Uriah Heep.
That’s a good line about Uriah Heep, but this complaint is typical of the way in which I believe mainstream bioethicists—another term I use—seek to avoid being nailed to the wall. As I wrote about a similar complaint made by a reviewer of Culture of Death in the Hastings Center Report:
I must say that I am growing weary of my critics’ constant whine that my book paints with too broad a brush. In my view, that is merely a way of insulating bioethics from any meaningful or systemic criticism. But just as one can criticize the general belief system of, say, Republicans — even though there are differences among those in the GOP — it seems fair to me to mount a macrocriticism of bioethics.
The only way to do that, it seems to me, is to find terminology to identify those with whom I disagree. Many bioethicists have certainly used labels to describe me: I have been called a “conservative” (as does Latham), “anti-science” a “bio-Luddite,” even an advocate for “the endarkenment,” etc. In fact, it seems to me that Latham’s attitude demonstrates that the default position of bioethics as what, Progressive, and it shows. Look at the vituperation and uttter disrespect directed against Leon Kass by many in the field when he—a heterodox thinker in the field—was named to head the President’s Council on Bioethics. Besides, what’s wrong with calling a bioethicist, a well, bioethicist?
Latham concludes with a good criticism and a pointed question that deserves an answer:
Finally,the “links” section is fairly lame, including only websites of the institutions with which he is officially affiliated. Both the Hastings Center’s Bioethics Forum and the American Journal of Bioethics’s own blog.bioethics.net link to him, but he does not link back. Why not?
I plead guilty to having a lame links section. I used to have a better one that did link to AJOB’s blog. But when I changed the look of the blog, I accidentally erased the old template,which included links that allowed readers to buy my books. I don’t have a student assistant or an intern to do such things for me, and I simply haven’t had the time to reconstruct the site as it was before.
Thanks again to Latham for taking the time to review SHS and to the AJOB for publishing it. I really appreciate it.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
