Utilitarianism goes Dutch

Michael Craven Michael Craven's weblog
Published Oct 10, 2005

This past week I wrote about the rise of utilitarian ethics and morality being effectively advanced by Princeton philosopher, Peter Singer. Admittedly, many people today disregard philosophy as a meaningful subject because they have been seduced into post-enlightenment ways of thinking that separate knowledge into primary and secondary categories. Primary knowledge, the modernist argues, is superior because it is based on facts, evidence, etc. - scientific materialism. Secondary knowledge, they will say, pertains to values and those things that are beyond human reason and therefore less important.

This dualistic approach to knowledge has produced a culture driven by rationalism to the extent that values are often trampled because they are deemed "unscientific" and therefore unfixed or unnecessary. Such is the case with Singer's utilitarianism; the problem is that these "philosophical" perspectives often make their way into main stream culture and thus shape society's perspective or at least that of the cultural elites who control culture.

There is no greater evidence of this than the fact that just last week I warned against the influence of utilitarianism and this week officials in The Netherlands announced that they were preparing to legalize "child euthanasia."

According to the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC), "The Dutch government intends to expand its current euthanasia policy, setting guidelines for when doctors may end the lives of terminally ill newborns with the parents' consent." The Netherlands became the first country to legalize euthanasia for adults under some conditions in 2001 and while euthanasia remains illegal in most countries, Belgium legalized it under strict conditions in 2002 and Switzerland allows passive assistance to terminally ill people who have expressed a wish to die.

The new policy known as the Groningen Protocol was drawn up in 2004 by doctors at the Groningen University Medical Centre. The change in Dutch policy is especially significant because it will provide the standard for how the country treats other cases in which patients are unable to say whether they want to live or die, such as those involving the mentally retarded or elderly people who have become senile. "Under the protocol, euthanasia would be permissible when a child is terminally ill with no prospect of recovery and suffering great pain, when two sets of doctors agree the situation is hopeless and when parents give their consent." (CBC)
What is new to The Netherlands' current euthanasia law is the proposal to eliminate any age restriction and the need for consent for persons who are unconscious or unable to make the decision for themselves. This is the final utilitarian step; someone else will make the decision about the value of another person's life and in many cases this will result in a eugenic approach to the question. Often this is for no other reason than some "perfect" person determines that this "imperfect" child may suffer in life and therefore "it would be best simply not to make them live."

On a personal note, I am the father of three wonderful children, the youngest of whom Maddie, is afflicted with a rare genetic disorder known as Moebius Syndrome; a condition that renders her face completely paralyzed as well as her vision and speech impaired. I cannot tell you what the presence of this precious child has meant to mine and my family's lives. Does and will my daughter suffer from the ignorance and prejudice of others? Certainly! But that doesn't mean that her life is not worth living. She is a precious human being who has value not just because her family values her but because she is made by and in the image of God. She is a precious gift that has been entrusted to us by God's grace and providence. She is not a product of time and chance but a human being that is intentionally and consciously made by a loving and merciful God.

Do my wife and I grieve for her condition and the challenges she will face? - Of course! Would we rather she had never been born? - Certainly not! It is the height of self-centered narcissism that would compel a parent to kill their child at any stage of life because they were "not perfect." I along with every other parent of a child with special needs can attest to the fact that we learn as much if not more about life from these wonderful children than they often learn from us. We see what it really means to be human! - In the face of suffering we often learn more about what it means to be fully human. We are not merely the sum of our parts; we are not valued based upon what we have, what we look like, how much we know or how athletic we are.

I realize that I have some personal capital invested in this argument but that's the point - it is always personal. I am deeply offended when so-called intellectual elites can stand at a distance in their ivory towers and argue for the "termination" of a life like my daughter's. While our society may not yet be ready to act in such utilitarian terms this form of thinking begins to establish a social perception in which people like my daughter are perceived as less valuable. These utilitarian conceptions are ultimately de-humanizing and we as a society suffer whenever this becomes the prevailing view of man.

Darwinism does not compel us to take a higher view of humanity. Darwinists who do hold to some higher view of man only do so because they unwittingly draw from the Christian life and world view. Inconsistent Darwinists are completely illogical in their views of morality, ethics, and humanity. The Darwinist must by necessity view human value in utilitarian terms if we are, in fact, nothing more than the random assembly of matter whose "evolutionary" progress is determined by selection of the fittest.
At least Peter Singer is honest in his philosophy; he believes that we should kill the weak and infirmed unlike most scientific materialists who, on one hand, want to deny God's role in creation while on the other extend compassion to the weak and infirmed. The one who holds to brute naturalistic causes must ultimately agree with what evolutionary ethicist Alexander Tille wrote in 1895:

"From the doctrine that all men are children of God and equal before him, the ideal of humanitarianism has grown, that all humans have the same right to exist and the same value, and this ideal has greatly influenced behavior in the last two centuries. This ideal is irreconcilable with the theory of evolution… It [evolution] recognizes only fit and unfit, healthy and sick, genius and atavist."

This irreconcilable difference demands that we either embrace evolutionary dogma rejecting all forms of Christian morality or we respond to what we know in our hearts to be the truth; mankind is made in the image of God and therefore he does have intrinsic value. This truth corresponds to what we know about reality - we cannot live as mere animals!

Too many Christians still see things in part without understanding their relationship to the whole. It is the foundational answers to the ultimate questions of origins, the nature of man, the problem of evil, and the nature of God and our relationship to Him that Christians must first understand and then take into every sphere of life and culture if we want to influence the culture for Christ.

Scientific materialism/Secularism is an all-embracing life-system and therefore as Abraham Kuyper so eloquently stated, "...it must be understood that we [Christians] have to take our stand in a life-system of equally comprehensive and far-reaching power." - A Christian life and world view that incorporates the biblical conception into every aspect of life and culture. Otherwise, we may see a future in which Maddie and any other precious person with a disability; be it cosmetic, physical or mental will be considered less than human and therefore expendable.

S. Michael Craven is the vice president for religion & culture at the National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families and leads the work and ministry of Cultural Apologetics. The Cultural Apologetics ministry works to equip the Church to assert and defend biblical morality and ethics in a manner that is rational, relevant and persuasive in order to recapture the relevance of Christianity to all of life by demonstrating its complete correspondence to reality. For more information on Cultural Apologetics, additional resources and other works by S. Michael Craven visit: www.CulturalApologetics.org

Michael lives in the Dallas area with his wife Carol and their three children.

Send feedback to: mc@nationalcoalition.org