richard_dawkins_-_the_god_delusion
292 T H E GOD D ELUSIONdoing his duty and carrying out the laws of the state? 125 But then,what are we to make of the famous report by the CNN journalistTucker Carlson? Carlson, who himself supports the death penalty,was shocked by Bush's 'humorous' imitation of a female prisoneron death row, pleading to the Governor for a stay of execution:' "Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation,"Don't kill me."' 126 Perhaps this woman would have met withmore sympathy if she had pointed out that she had once been anembryo. The contemplation of embryos really does seem to havethe most extraordinary effect upon many people of faith. MotherTeresa of Calcutta actually said, in her speech accepting the NobelPeace Prize, 'The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion.' What?How can a woman with such cock-eyed judgement be takenseriously on any topic, let alone be thought seriously worthy of aNobel Prize? Anybody tempted to be taken in by thesanctimoniously hypocritical Mother Teresa should readChristopher Hitchens's book The Missionary Position: MotherTeresa in Theory and Practice.Returning to the American Taliban, listen to Randall Terry,founder of Operation Rescue, an organization for intimidatingabortion providers. 'When I, or people like me, are running thecountry, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you,and we'll execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it partof my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed.' Terrywas here referring to doctors who provide abortions, and hisChristian inspiration is clearly shown by other statements:I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash overyou. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes,hate is good ... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have aBiblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country.We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism.Our goal must be simple. We must have a Christiannation built on God's law, on the Ten Commandments.No apologies. 127This ambition to achieve what can only be called a Christian fasciststate is entirely typical of the American Taliban. It is an almost
WHAT'S WRONG WIT H R E L I G I O N ? 293exact mirror image of the Islamic fascist state so ardently sought bymany people in other parts of the world. Randall Terry is not - yet- in political power. But no observer of the American political sceneat the time of writing (2006) can afford to be sanguine.A consequentialist or utilitarian is likely to approach theabortion question in a very different way, by trying to weigh upsuffering. Does the embryo suffer? (Presumably not if it is abortedbefore it has a nervous system; and even if it is old enough to havea nervous system it surely suffers less than, say, an adult cow in aslaughterhouse.) Does the pregnant woman, or her family, suffer ifshe does not have an abortion? Very possibly so; and, in any case,given that the embryo lacks a nervous system, shouldn't themother's well-developed nervous system have the choice?This is not to deny that a consequentialist might have groundsto oppose abortion. 'Slippery slope' arguments can be framed byconsequentialists (though I wouldn't in this case). Maybe embryosdon't suffer, but a culture that tolerates the taking of human liferisks going too far: where will it all end? In infanticide? Themoment of birth provides a natural Rubicon for defining rules, andone could argue that it is hard to find another one earlier inembryonic development. Slippery slope arguments could thereforelead us to give the moment of birth more significance thanutilitarianism, narrowly interpreted, would prefer.Arguments against euthanasia, too, can be framed in slipperyslope terms. Let's invent an imaginary quotation from a moralphilosopher: 'If you allow doctors to put terminal patients out oftheir agony, the next thing you know everybody will be bumpingoff their granny to get her money. We philosophers may have grownout of absolutism, but society needs the discipline of absolute rulessuch as "Thou shalt not kill," otherwise it doesn't know where tostop. Under some circumstances absolutism might, for all thewrong reasons in a less than ideal world, have better consequencesthan naive consequentialism! We philosophers might have a hardtime prohibiting the eating of people who were already dead andunmourned - say road-killed tramps. But, for slippery slopereasons, the absolutist taboo against cannibalism is too valuable tolose.'Slippery slope arguments might be seen as a way in which
- Page 236 and 237: H E ' G O O D " B O O K A N D T H E
- Page 238 and 239: THE ' G O O D ' B O O K AND T H E M
- Page 240 and 241: T H E ' G O O D ' B O () K A N D T
- Page 242 and 243: T H E ' G O I H ) ' B O O K AN l> T
- Page 244 and 245: T H E ' G O O D ' BO O K A N D T H
- Page 246 and 247: ' ! I K ' G O O 1) ' B O O K A N I"
- Page 248 and 249: T H E - G O O D ' B O O K A N D T H
- Page 250 and 251: T H i : ' G O O IV Si O O K A N D T
- Page 252 and 253: TII 1- ' G O O D ' B O O K A N D T
- Page 254 and 255: F i l l • ( . O O D ' B O O K A N
- Page 256 and 257: T H |{ • (. O O D ' B O O K A N D
- Page 258 and 259: HI-: ' G O O D ' B O O K A N D T H
- Page 260 and 261: T H I: ' G O O D ' BO O K A N D T H
- Page 262 and 263: 1 M I. • C; O () I) ' B O O K A N
- Page 264 and 265: T H E ' G () O I) ' B O O K A N D T
- Page 266 and 267: G O O I") ' B O O K A N D T 1 i I ,
- Page 268 and 269: T H E ' G O O D " B O O K A N D T H
- Page 270 and 271: T III ' (, () O D ' H O () K A X D
- Page 272 and 273: T H H ' G O () D ' B O O K A N D T
- Page 274 and 275: CHAPTER 8What's wrong withreligion?
- Page 276 and 277: 282 THE GOD DELUSIONbomb anybody, b
- Page 278 and 279: 284 THE GOD DELUSIONof the lecture,
- Page 280 and 281: 286 THE GOD DELUSIONof the church i
- Page 282 and 283: 288 T H E GOD D E L U S I O Nmentio
- Page 284 and 285: 290 THE GOD DELUSIONpeople is their
- Page 288 and 289: 294 THE GOD DELUSIONconsequentialis
- Page 290 and 291: 296 THE GOD DELUSIONliving in Brita
- Page 292 and 293: 298 THE GOD DELUSIONSecular moralis
- Page 294 and 295: 300 THE GOD DELUSIONof religious up
- Page 296 and 297: 302 THE GOD DELUSIONTaliban of Afgh
- Page 298 and 299: 304 T H E G O D D ELUSIO Nhimself.
- Page 300 and 301: 306 THE GOD DELUSIO Nbelieve what t
- Page 302 and 303: 308 T H E G O D DEL U S I O Nthat f
- Page 304 and 305: C H I L D H O O D , ABUSE AND R E L
- Page 306 and 307: CHILDHOOD, ABUSE AND RELIGION 313at
- Page 308 and 309: CHILDHOOD, ABUSE AND RELIGION 315Ed
- Page 310 and 311: C H I L D H O O D , ABUSE AND R E L
- Page 312 and 313: C H I L D H O O D , ABUSE AND R E L
- Page 314 and 315: CHILDHOOD, ABUSE AND RELIGION 321to
- Page 316 and 317: C H I L D H O O D , ABUSE AND R E L
- Page 318 and 319: CHILDHOOD, ABUSE AND RELIGION 325be
- Page 320 and 321: C H I L D H O O D , ABUSE AND R E L
- Page 322 and 323: C H I L D H O O D , ABUSE AND RELIG
- Page 324 and 325: C H I L D H O O D , ABUSE AND R E L
- Page 326 and 327: CHILDHOOD, ABUSE AND RELIGION 333.t
- Page 328 and 329: C H I L D H O O D , A B U S E A N D
- Page 330 and 331: CHILDHOOD, ABUSE AND RELIGION 337th
- Page 332 and 333: CHILDHOOD, ABUSE AND RELIGION 339He
- Page 334 and 335: CHILDHOOD, ABUSE AND RELIGION 341de
WHAT'S WRONG WIT H R E L I G I O N ? 293
exact mirror image of the Islamic fascist state so ardently sought by
many people in other parts of the world. Randall Terry is not - yet
- in political power. But no observer of the American political scene
at the time of writing (2006) can afford to be sanguine.
A consequentialist or utilitarian is likely to approach the
abortion question in a very different way, by trying to weigh up
suffering. Does the embryo suffer? (Presumably not if it is aborted
before it has a nervous system; and even if it is old enough to have
a nervous system it surely suffers less than, say, an adult cow in a
slaughterhouse.) Does the pregnant woman, or her family, suffer if
she does not have an abortion? Very possibly so; and, in any case,
given that the embryo lacks a nervous system, shouldn't the
mother's well-developed nervous system have the choice?
This is not to deny that a consequentialist might have grounds
to oppose abortion. 'Slippery slope' arguments can be framed by
consequentialists (though I wouldn't in this case). Maybe embryos
don't suffer, but a culture that tolerates the taking of human life
risks going too far: where will it all end? In infanticide? The
moment of birth provides a natural Rubicon for defining rules, and
one could argue that it is hard to find another one earlier in
embryonic development. Slippery slope arguments could therefore
lead us to give the moment of birth more significance than
utilitarianism, narrowly interpreted, would prefer.
Arguments against euthanasia, too, can be framed in slippery
slope terms. Let's invent an imaginary quotation from a moral
philosopher: 'If you allow doctors to put terminal patients out of
their agony, the next thing you know everybody will be bumping
off their granny to get her money. We philosophers may have grown
out of absolutism, but society needs the discipline of absolute rules
such as "Thou shalt not kill," otherwise it doesn't know where to
stop. Under some circumstances absolutism might, for all the
wrong reasons in a less than ideal world, have better consequences
than naive consequentialism! We philosophers might have a hard
time prohibiting the eating of people who were already dead and
unmourned - say road-killed tramps. But, for slippery slope
reasons, the absolutist taboo against cannibalism is too valuable to
lose.'
Slippery slope arguments might be seen as a way in which