The Civil Liberties Question is Pressing

PSYCHOLOGY HAS BECOME THAT NEW-TIME RELIGION 

“Psychology began life this century as a reasonable study of the human mind to see if we could find out what makes us tick upstairs. It is now, of course, a religion. Even religionists who worship at traditional altars still make their bows to psychology.” - Bill Granger 

And from Aldous Huxley, Brave New World with regard to Civil Liberties (for those of you who have not read the book, it speaks of a world controlled by genetic and behavioral manipulation):

All right then," said the savage defiantly, I'm claiming the right to be unhappy." “Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat, the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen tomorrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind." There was a long silence. “I claim them all," said the Savage at last.” 

Why is this important? It has largely to do with authority. The constant appeal to  ‘I lost so many’ as justification is not justification for method. We all weeping at our limited nature in the natural and or beliefs reflect the theodicy that brings the good. 

“If it’s appropriate to use vaccine technology to decrease disability why not appropriate to use gene editing to the same effect?” - Nessa Carey. 

This question was presented in a Trevor Stammers lecture. Most, if not all the arguments I’ve heard…to date in the public setting, that are not undecided about such matters, appeal to a utilitarian ethical framework (not Stammers incidentally). Others in principle suggest that civil society (a group of people) are not in a position to usefully take part in such referendums/of public opinion (normally tacit in such a claim the, ‘others’ refers to people not like them…that is committed to progressive methodological compromise… neither hot nor cold…true or false). Indeed, the appeal - it seems, is always ultimately to the authority of Government…(a group of people voted for… and we are told, somehow less susceptible to manipulation, corruption and vested interests). An in principle argument at this stage regarding the question by Nassa Carey is, I believe, a significant challenge. Yet the civil liberties question is far more pressing.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

All Truth is Mere truth?

Merely Natural Rights In a recent discussion with regard to natural law, a comment was made (it seemed to suggest, I think) that such appeals to a natural law are merely reformed (merely part of, any marginal group, for the sake of argument). It is difficult to grasp, given the context -  Thomas Aquinas in view, why the reference to the Reformed position at all. But I did think, at the time, it would be interesting... to some, to read this.  “Fundamental to Rawls’s theory is the principle of equal respect for all members of the social order (or for all members who can engage in the relevant “bargaining”). The question is, what is the basis for this principle of equal respect? Dworkin’s conclusion is that “justice as fairness rests on the assumption of a natural right of all men and women to equality of concern and respect, a right they possess not by virtue of birth or characteristic or merit or excellence but simply as human beings with the capacity to make plans and give justice.” Dw
Read more

Loving (a very wobbly approximation) Part Two

Loving (a very wobbly approximation) Part 2 I am very slowly working through the book, Determined to Believe, by John Lennox. It is a remarkable book and for my part hugely challenging. Below are some thoughts relevant to what I wrote previously in part one of this meditation. Quote: “Cambridge neuroscientist Harvey McMahon writes: Free-will also underpins ethics, where choices are made in the light of moral principles. In fact free-will underpins all choices. Furthermore, free-will underpins the role of intentionality and guilt in the judicial system… The very idea of rules or laws implies that we have a choice or ability to obey. How can the law command us to do certain things if we do not have the ability to do them? Thus, even the concept of obedience implies we have a choice.” Excerpt From, Determined to Believe, Lennox, John C. Our desire for fairness which I discussed in part one points to human concern about suffering. Law in this light is not a cold scientific utilitarianism,
Read more

Weapons of Freedom?

Weapons of Freedom? The Jacob Zuma Coup d'état, was ultimately thwarted, some believe, on grounds that: 1. Private security in South Africa, outnumbered the military, (many private people also bare arms). 2. The taxi industry, it seems, also has no taste for state capturing dictatorship. So what seemed impossible, happened when Zuma stepped down. To be ‘...free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources;’ is something we need to all stand for. Yet, today it seems no more than a useful fiction in the mouths of government officials hell bent on the boiling of all sorts of frogs. ‘Boiling frogs’ for those that don’t know, notoriously the words of President Cyril Ramaphosa in reference to those excluded from the category ‘our people’. This category seems to shrink daily in those it now excludes, Michael Cassidy reminded us. It is a cruel irony when Bheki Cele implied (beneath rhetorical concern for our people) that South Africans have no right to arms. That is, in
Read more