This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The doctors involved have the outright ability to deny the parent's wishes here, if they consider it to be against the best interests of the child. This goes the other way too, they have the legal ability and duty to forcibly provide care in situations where the parents might vehemently disagree, if they think it's in the child's best interests.
Source: I've studied enough of UK medical ethics for my exams that I'm now more familiar with it than the laws in India.
You are of course, correct, but the reported legal cases where doctors have refused treatment that parents wanted on "best interests of the child" grounds (e.g. Charlie Gard) involve more severe disability than spina bifida - mostly cases where the treating doctors thought it was unlikely that the child would ever breathe unaided. If doctors were deciding to withold treatment based on a judgement that parents who claimed to be willing should not in fact be allowed to parent a child who could have a "normal disabled" life then there would be parents suing and the cases would be showing up in the law reports.
The reason why the ethics textbook I hurled across the room in my youth used spina bifida as a case study is that the surgery is sufficiently simple that refusing it is clearly infanticide-by-omission, and was therefore a live controversy at the time (example discussion from a quick google) with the Reagan administration treating it as a right-to-life issue in the US and repeatedly being overruled by the courts, leaving it as in issue of de facto parental discretion.
As far as I can see, that specific issue is no longer live in the UK because modern imaging means that spina bifida is diagnosed in utero and the standard response outside pro-life culture is an abortion (although fetal surgery which seals the spinal cord and prevents damage before it happens is now an increasingly available option). I don't think this affects the ethics much - I genuinely struggle to see how the morality of unaliving a likely-to-be-disabled child depends on which side of the birth canal it is on.
The point I am trying to make is that nobody (except parts of the US pro-life movement) treats infanticide-by-omission in this type of case as "monstrous" - everyone understands that it is a practically and morally difficult decision. And utilitarians (or any other form of consequentialist ethics) think that infanticide-by-omission and infanticide-by-deliberate-act are approximately morally equivalent. So when I see "Singer is a monster who promotes infanticide of disabled kids" I assume I am seeing either an ill-thought-out emotional response similar to my 18-year-old self, or a religiously motivated pro-lifer (who secular philosophers have already written out of the conversation because "God says so" is not a valid argument unless both sides acknowledge that God is real).
I don't really have a longer response to make because I happen to agree with you here haha. Yes, a few centimeters of flesh and fluid doesn't change the moral valence as far as I'm concerned (and thus I see no difference of note between abortion or infanticide, at least for identical periods of gestation), and knee-jerk emotional responses attract at best my bemusement, at worst my disdain.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link