DEFENDING THE SANCTITY OF LIFE

Daniel Callahan

p e te r Singer 's ar t ic le raises five i m p o r t a n t ques-

t ions. The first is w h e t h e r " t h e t rad i t ional e th ic

of the sanct i ty o f life" can be d e f e n d e d "in t e rms of

pub l i c reasoning." The s e c o n d ques t ion , p r e s e n t

bu t no t clear ly a c k n o w l e d g e d , is this: w h a t ough t

to be the re la t ionsh ip b e t w e e n the way w e def ine

i m p o r t a n t c o n c e p t s and the se t t ing of mora l values

and pub l i c pol icy? The th i rd ques t ion is w h e t h e r

the deba t e over the def in i t ion of dea th can serve as

an i m p o r t a n t e x a m p l e of the e ros ion of the tradi-

t ional ethic . The four th is w h e t h e r " secular" reason-

ing can offer a b e t t e r p e r s p e c t i v e on the t r ea tmen t

of infants w i t h severe disabi l i t ies . The fifth ques-

t ion is one I w a n t to pose : if Pe te r Singer 's w a y of

d e t e r m i n i n g h o w w e ough t to value h u m a n life is

w r o n g , is t he re a b e t t e r way?

The Sanctity of Life

Singer i m m e d i a t e l y gets off on the w r o n g foot by speak ing of "the" t radi t ional sanct i ty of life. If

tha t w o r d "the" is m e a n t to d e n o t e some unchang-

ing, solidly agreed u p o n set of values, that is wrong .

Slavery was once justified, as was the bu rn ing o f

here t ics , as was a refusal to grant any mora l s tatus

to animals. All those pos i t ions have changed . Capi-

tal p u n i s h m e n t is still d e f e n d e d b y some re l ig ious

conservat ives as par t of" the t radi t ion," but the p o p e

and mos t Cathol ics b i shops , no t to m e n t i o n many

Pro tes tan t leaders , have c o n d e m n e d it in r ecen t

years. Just w a r t heo ry is unde r a t tack by many Chris-

t ian pacifists , w h o argue that the mainl ine t rad i t ion

on w a r and p e a c e has s imply b e e n unfai thful to thc

sources of Christianity. And of course Chris t ians and

Jews have long he ld different v iews on abor t ion . In

sea rch ing t h r o u g h Singer 's wr i t ings , it is ha rd to

f ind any careful examina t ion of "the tradi t ion" at all.

At bes t he presen ts a h o d g e p o d g e of isolated quotes,

m u c h in the fundamenta l i s t ' s style o f "p roof texting,"

that is, p i ck ing out i sola ted passages f rom the Bible

o r some o t h e r i m p o r t a n t re l igious d o c u m e n t s tha t

will suppor t the po in t (any poin t ) one wants to make

abou t "the tradition." Singer is as ski l led at that art

as any hard-sheU s o u t h e r n Baptist . They just w o r k

different s ides of the s t reet .

There is a no the r p r o b l e m as well . T h o u g h of ten

used in r ecen t years, the ph rase "the sanct i ty of

life" is no t a t rad i t ional re l ig ious c o n c e p t . It has no

f i xed m e a n i n g and is no t an official pa r t o f any

church ' s doc t r ine . No d o u b t the w e s t e r n re l ig ions

n o w u p h o l d the v i ew that it is "wrong in ten t iona l ly

to end the life of an i n n o c e n t h u m a n be ing , " bu t

that pos i t i on has t aken a long t ime to d e v e l o p - -

and is still d e v e l o p i n g - - w i t h many twis ts and tu rns

a long the way.

Is it real ly the case, in any event , that this v i ew

can no t c o m m a n d a de fense based on "publ ic rea-

soning"? The Uni ted Nat ions has t hough t it can be. Art ic le 2 of the UN Decla ra t ion of H u m a n Rights

d o c u m e n t s tates that "Everyone has a r ight to life,

l iber ty and secur i ty of p e r s o n " Art ic le 6 s ta tes tha t

"Everyone has a r ight to r ecogn i t ion e v e r y w h e r e as

a p e r s o n before the law." I th ink it a fair r ead ing of

those two p r o p o s i t i o n s t aken t o g e t h e r that inno-

cen t life ough t to be p r o t e c t e d , not kil led. Even if

some re l ig ions have he ld the same pos i t ion , w h a t

d i f ference does that make? If it can be d e f e n d e d on

ra t ional g r o u n d s - - a s , say, the b ibl ica l p r o h i b i t i o n

of s teal ing can b e - - t h e n it shou ld sure ly be accep t -

able even by Singer 's s tandards .

Concepts, Morality, a n d Public Policy There is a ca tegory of w o r d s and re la ted c o n c e p t s

that have b o t h an empi r i ca l and a no rma t ive con-

tent. "Peace" is such a te rm, deno t ing a pa r t i cu la r

s tate of h u m a n affairs (tranquility, lack of strife) and

ye t at the same t ime having a no rma t ive c o n t e n t as

16 SOCIETY �9 JULY/AUGUST 2001

wel l ( p e a c e as s o m e t h i n g w e value). Yet b e c a u s e of

the i r m i x e d cha rac t e r such c o n c e p t s are end less ly

o p e n to a rgument , s o m e t i m e s b e c a u s e of disagree-

m e n t a b o u t w h a t coun t s empir ical ly , s o m e t i m e s

b e c a u s e o f d i f ferent no rma t ive a t t r ibu t ions , and

s o m e t i m e s for b o t h reasons .

The w o r d "death" is a case in poin t . H o w ough t

w e to de te rmine w h e n to p r o n o u n c e a p e r s o n dead?

The re is r o o m for d i s a g r e e m e n t s ince t he re are no

f ixed b io logica l signs, at the bo rde r l i ne of life and

death , abou t w h a t coun t s as be ing dead; long-dead

bodies , for ins tance, c o n t i n u e to g r o w fingernails .

The t e rm "death" is one w e h u m a n s have i nven ted

to de sc r ibe a ce r ta in state of affairs; na ture does

no t tel l us w h a t the "correc t" def in i t ion is. Nor do

w e n e e d to f ind some final, pe r fec t def ini t ion. The

impor t an t issue is to de te rmine , for po l icy purposes ,

w h e n it is a ccep t ab l e to p r o n o u n c e a p e r s o n dead.

There are var ious reasons , no t all of t h e m the same,

for want ing legally to p r o n o u n c e s o m e o n e dead, and

w h i c h is no t the same, no r n e e d it be the same, as

d e t e r m i n i n g p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y w h a t d e a t h means .

Those reasons inf luence the normat ive content , that

is, the de t e rmina t i on of w h i c h empi r i ca l cond i t ions

war ran t a p r o n o u n c e m e n t of death .

An Erosion o f Traditional Values? H o w w e c h o o s e ou r no rma t ive c o n t e n t for the

w o r d " d e a t h " w i l l be d e t e r m i n e d , then, by our pur-

pose in wan t ing to def ine it, bu t a l s o - - a s w i th o t h e r

policy-relevant t e r m s - - i n light of the values w e want

to foster o r p ro t ec t . Wha t has b e e n sought , in vary-

ing ways over the years , has b e e n a def in i t ion of

dea th that (a) takes into a c c o u n t i m p o r t a n t values

that the soc ie ty w a n t s to p ro tec t , (b) scient i f ic de-

ve lopmen t s , (c) social and po l i cy n e e d s - - a n d (d)

is no t i n c o m p a t i b l e wi th the p e r c e i v e d empi r i ca l e lements . W h a t Singer t rea ts in a s o m e w h a t cynical

w a y - - s h a p i n g a n e w def in i t ion mere ly to facil i tate

o rgan r e t r i e v a l - - I w o u l d see as s imply one more

leg i t imate h is tor ica l d e v e l o p m e n t , no t incons i s t en t

w i th ear l ier ways o f th inking, just different . The re

was no reason to ques t ion the o ld hea r t -hmg defini-

t ion of dea th before r e sp i ra to r s and the n e e d for

organs. It m a d e g o o d sense w h e n the grea tes t fear

was b u r y i n g s o m e o n e w h o migh t c o m e back to

consc iousnes s ( w h i c h exp la ins the ear l ie r p rac t i ce

of o f ten pu t t i ng bel ls in coffins). Then some rea-

sons c a m e a long to make a change , g o o d reasons.

The e th ica l ques t ion is w h e t h e r the mot ive for

wan t i ng a c h a n g e - - i n par t o rgan retr ieval , but also

a puzz le o f w h a t to do w i th those sus ta ined on res-

p i r a t o r s - w a s a b a d m o t i v e (no, I th ink) , and

w h e t h e r it t h r e a t e n e d any t rad i t ional va lua t ion of

the w o r t h of life (no, also). Whi l e even the c o n c e p t

of a "h igher brain" has r ecen t ly b e e n cha l lenged , I

see no reason why, if t e c h n o l o g y makes that diag-

nosis poss ib le , w e shou ld no t a c c e p t a p e r m a n e n t

loss of c o n s c i o u s n e s s as a mora l ly a c c e p t a b l e divid-

ing l ine for the p r o n o u n c e m e n t of death . Singer is

r ight on the subs t ance o f this issue, and r ight that

this might , psychologica l ly , be ha rd for p e o p l e to

accep t , bu t that is no t a g o o d reason to evade it. In

t ime, it w o u l d be a c c e p t e d just as, w i t h occas iona l

bu t d imin i sh ing excep t ions , w h o l e b ra in dea th is

n o w accep t ed . Such a change wou ld , moreover ,

p o s e no cha l lenge w h a t e v e r to any t rad i t iona l val-

ues. The psycho log ica l d i scomfor t w o u l d be a mi-

no r cons ide ra t i on c o m p a r e d w i th the m o r e radical ,

and w h o l l y unnecessary , move to re jec t the v i ew

that it is w r o n g to "end the life of an i n n o c e n t per-

son ," and use that as a ra t ionale to re t r ieve organs.

The Secular Perspect ive Though I am no t a rel igious believer, anyone w h o

is rel igious could qui te rightly take offense at Singer's

ad h o m i n e m , demean ing , and dogma t i c assump-

t ion that t he re is some supe r io r " r a t i ona r ' and"secu-

lar" u n d e r s t a n d i n g of life and dea th issues. If so, it

is no t on d i sp lay in this art icle, w h i c h is no th ing

more than a d i sp lay of ut i l i tar ian i deo logy (and a

n a r r o w reduc t ion i s t i c v iew at that) .

Singer 's a r g u m e n t for the mora l l ic i tness of kill-

ing a n e w b o r n chi ld d isp lays some of those disturb-

ing ut i l i tar ian traits. He c o n c e d e s that one great

d i f fe rence b e t w e e n the h u m a n spec ies and animals

is that the f o r m e r has the capacity, qua species , for

self-awareness. The mora l p r o b l e m is to d e t e r m i n e

w h a t to make of that spec i e s capacity. It is no t un-

r easonab le to c o n c l u d e that it p laces h u m a n be ings at a h ighe r level of evo lu t iona ry d e v e l o p m e n t than

any animal spec ies . Typica l m e m b e r s of the h u m a n

spec ies can also, for ins tance , take mora l responsi -

bi l i ty for the wel fare of animals, bu t there is no

animal spec i e s tha t can do the same for us. Hu-

mans can pu t t o g e t h e r a Grea t Ape p ro j ec t to pro-

t ec t and p r e s e r v e tha t spec ies , bu t it is unimagin-

a b l e t h a t , w e r e h u m a n l i fe t h r e a t e n e d w i t h

ex t inc t ion , the grea t apes cou ld save us (or w o u l d

even have the capac i ty to th ink abou t saving us).

This h ighe r h u m a n status does no t war ran t the

be l ie f that w e the re fo re have a r ight to do wi th ani-

mals w h a t w e please . Singer is to be t h a n k e d for

he lp ing us to see that much . But it does w a r r an t

the be l ie f that w e have a r ight to de f end the value

of h u m a n life, and w e can p r o p e r l y do so on the

DEFENDING THE SANCTITY OF LIFE 17

basis of spec ies m e m b e r s h i p alone, no t on g rounds

o f look ing at each individual pe r son , one b y one,

and pass ing mora l j u d g m e n t on his or he r h u m a n

wor th . The fact that an individual p e r s o n does not

c o m e up to the spec ies - typ ica l level p rov ides no

g rounds for conc lud ing that he or she has less value

than those that do ( w h i c h is w h y the d i sab led look

u p o n Singer w i th such a l a r m - - h e legi t imizes mak-

ing i nv id ious va lue d i s t i n c t i o n s a m o n g h u m a n s

solely on the basis of the i r possess ion of var ious

cogni t ive character is t ics) .

Singer of cour se makes his o w n case much eas ier

b y assuming the i r re levance of potent ial i ty . Since

n e w b o r n bab ies s h o w no self-awareness, t hey can

be killed, even though only t ime is requi red for t hem

to reach that point . But w h y should w e a c c e p t that?

The r emarkab le th ing abou t h u m a n be ings in gen-

eral is no t s imply that t hey can do this or that r ight

now, bu t that t hey have the po ten t i a l to do w h a t

they can do in the future; and at any given t ime of

our life mos t of ou r po ten t i a l is no t actual ized. W h y

do mos t p e o p l e regre t that p o o r ch i ld ren have bad

educa t ions and s o m e t i m e s t e r r ib le health? It is not

s imply b e c a u s e of w h a t it does to t h e m n o w bu t

also because w e see lost fu ture possibi l i t ies . We are

wi l l ing to p u t a long p e r i o d of t ime into a good edu-

ca t ion for ch i ld ren p rec i se ly in o rde r to b r ing out

the po ten t i a l w e k n o w is there . If se l f -awareness is

such a crucial h u m a n trait, then wha t could be more

w o r t h cher i sh ing , for the ch i ld ' s sake, than the

po ten t i a l for se l f -awareness ( w h i c h many psycho lo-

gists ho ld does no t in fact o c c u r unti l wel l af ter one

yea r of age anyway) .

To say that n e w b o r n ch i ld ren have value if and only if the i r pa ren t s value t h e m is to pu t t h e m in

the same ca t ego ry as a p i e c e of d i sposab le p rop-

erty. My wife and I once g r ieved w h e n w e b roke an

o ld family h e i r l o o m vase, bu t it d id no t o c c u r to us

to pu t ou r n e w b o r n ch i ld ren in the same category,

va lueless in themse lves bu t w o r t h on ly w h a t w e

d e c i d e d to make t h e m wor th . I guess that was naive

on ou r par t .

Valuing Human Life Hardly anyth ing is m o r e i m p o r t a n t for the wel-

fare of the h u m a n spec ies than h o w it dec ides to

value i tself as a spec ies and h o w to value the indi-

v idual h u m a n be ings w h o make it up. Human his-

to ry is filled wi th the bod ies of those thought wor th-

less: those ch i ld ren in many pas t societ ies w h o were

the v ic t ims of infant ic ide, or those baby girls in

some p r e s e n t soc ie t i es w h o s e paren ts , agree ing

w i th Singer and indif ferent to the i r chi ld 's po ten-

tial, th ink t h e m only w o r t h y of dea th , or the gen-

e ra t ion u p o n genera t ion of slaves, also p i e c e s of

p roper ty , the i r life or dea th d e p e n d e n t u p o n the

value the i r mas te r s p l a c e d u p o n them, or the al-

most ent i re h i s to ry of w o m e n , sub jec t to the p o w e r

of men , some t imes to the p o i n t of death .

To m e it is a grea t puzz le h o w s o m e o n e as intel-

l igent as Peter Singer can see no connec t ion b e t w e e n

those events and his views. It is no t easy e i the r to

u n d e r s t a n d s o m e o n e w h o s e p rofess iona l ambi t ion

seems to be he lp ing us to f ind reasons to kill ou r

o w n kind, espec ia l ly those w h o are innocen t . The

so-cal led sanct i ty of life t r a d i t i o n - - a t least in t e rms

of its p e r c e p t i o n of the va lue of i n n o c e n t life that

Singer s c o r n s - - d i d no t start in full b loom. It t ook

genera t ions of s t ruggle for us ( s o m e of us) to un-

de r s t and that the kil l ing of the i n n o c e n t - - t h a t is,

the kil l ing of those w h o pose no th rea t to us, and

w h o are to be ki l led be c a use they ge t in ou r w a y

(l ike s o m e o n e w h o is n o t " c u t out" to deal w i th dis-

ab led chi ldren , as if anyone is), o r fail to m e e t our

s tandards of sui table self-awareness. The Nazis d id

no t kill the Jews be c a use of some re l ig ious super-

sti t ion. They did it on the basis of a bad s c i e n c e - -

bu t the re igning "rational" sc i ence of the t i m e s - - a

sc i ence that was a handy means o f mak ing a g o o d

pub l ic case w h y it had to be done . W o m e n ove r the

cen tu r i e s w e r e opp re s se d , no t just b e c a u s e of reli-

g ious t each ing ( t hough it p layed a s u p p o r t i n g ro le

a l so ) , b u t b e c a u s e - - g o i n g b a c k to P l a to a n d

A r i s t o t l e - - s o l i d pub l i c r eason ing (of the m o m e n t ,

at that t ime) was a d d u c e d to p rov ide e v i d e n c e for

the i r inferiority.

Human progress in valuing life has a lmost a lways c o m e on the hee ls of a p e r c e p t i o n that it is w r o n g

to a l low those in p o w e r to have the r ight to deter-

mine the value of those wi th in the i r power . Men

o u g h t n o t to h a v e t h e r i g h t to k i l l w o m e n ,

s laveholders ought not to have the right to kill slaves,

and pa ren t s ough t no t to have the r ight to kill the i r

chi ldren. In each case, it was one g r o u p of h u m a n

be ings that was once a l lowed to d r aw the l ine de-

t e rmin ing w h o w o u l d be c o u n t e d a full and va lued

m e m b e r of the h u m a n spec ies and w h o w o u l d not.

It is this m o d e of th inking and judging that has b e e n

re jec ted . Singer does no t offer us a n e w ethic, bu t

s imply a re turn to an old, murderous , barbar ic ethic.

If the re is a "new" ethic, the be t t e r one I see is this:

that eve ry be ing that can b io logica l ly be just if iably

desc r ibed as human, and w h o has done us no wrong,

ough t to have its life p ro t e c t e d . That p r i nc ip l e is

fully c o m p a t i b l e wi th the s t o p p i n g of med ica l treat-

men t w h e n it wil l do the pa t i en t no fu r the r good.

18 SOCIETY �9 JULY/AUGUST 2001

But are w e in fact, as Singer states, see ing the

"tradi t ional" e th ic e rode? This might be ca l led the

a rgumen t f rom cyn ic i sm and hypocr isy : that w e are

a l ready do ing w h a t Singer wan t s if w e w e r e only hones t e n o u g h to admi t it. It is a familiar Singer

gambit : only the c h o s e n few, the ne rvy phi loso-

phers , have the ins ight to see w h a t is really going

on. That move n ice ly a l lows h im to i n t e rp re t for his

o w n po lemica l p u r p o s e t r ends that can be under-

s tood ve ry differently.

And the re is a difference. W h e n w e dec ide to

t e rmina t e t r e a tmen t on a p e r s o n w h o is i rrevers-

ibly unconsc ious , w e are no t s w i n g such a life no

longer has value. We are ins tead saying that medi-

c ine can no longer benef i t that pa t ien t , that dea th

has come . W h e n w e d e t e r m i n e no t to t rea t a se-

vere ly d i sab led child, w e arc no t saying that chi ld

has no w o r t h as a h u m a n being. We are saying that

m e d i c i n e can not r e scue that chi ld from the lethal

fate b e s t o w e d u p o n it by nature , and w e s top try-

ing to do so. W h e n w e refuse to kill s o m e o n e w h o

suffers, as eu thanas ia s u p p o r t e r s w o u l d a l low phy-

sicians to do, w e are saying that no d o c t o r has the

r ight to use his t echn ica l skills to end a life that

ano the r th inks has no value any longer (even if it is

that p e r s o n ' s life).

Singer is w r o n g in his i n t e rp re t a t i on o f wha t is

actual ly h a p p e n i n g , w r o n g in his u n d e r s t a n d i n g of

the "sanct i ty o f life" t rad i t ion (assuming one can dis-

cover it), w r o n g in his a t tack on religion, and w r o n g

in wan t i ng to he lp us f ind ways to kill n e w b o r n

babies . Mar tha Nussbaum, in he r 2000 pres iden t ia l

address to the Amer i can Ph i losoph ica l Associa t ion ,

said that w e n e e d a r edes igned "pol i t ical concep -

t ion of the pe r son , b r ing ing the ra t ional and the

animal into a m o r e in t imate re la t ion wi th one an-

other, and acknowledg ing that the re are many types

of d igni ty in the wor ld , inc luding the d igni ty of

menta l ly d i sab led ch i ld ren and adults, the d igni ty

of the seni le d e m e n t e d elderly, and the d ign i ty of

bab ies at the breast." That seems to me a b e t t e r di-

r ec t ion in w h i c h to go.

Daniel Callahan is Director, International Pro- grams, at The Hastings Center. He is the author, most recently, o f False Hopes.

cloth $65.00 �9 paper $21.95

MICHXGAN The University of Michigan Press Department JW Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106- 1104

A Civil Economy Transforming the Market in the Twenty-First Century

Severyn T. Bruyn

"Quietly revolutionary, A Civil Economy helps us see what remains invisible to most--how the principles of responsibility and accountability are subtly bringing economic life into the democratic fold. Fascinating examples bring to life what may be the next stage in the evolution of democracy." --Frances Moore Lapp~

"Admirably researched and excellently written .... I recommend it strongly to all who wish to see solid economic life as it is and how it can be improved." --John Kenneth Galbraith

"Civil econom~what a great concept! Bruyn has given us a wake-up call for a new kind of economic analysis--and better yet, a new kind of economic activism." --Elise Boulding

"This is one of those rare books that makes you look at the world differently. Bruyn's arguments provide a realistic yet revolutionary way of re-imagining how to make the world better." - -Corey Rosen, National Center for Employee Ownership

Credit card buyers may order by phone (734-764-4392) or by fax (734-876-1922). www.press.umich.edu

DEFENDING THE SANCTITY OF LIFE 19