One paragraph -- three fallacies

One paragraph, three fallacies -- you go girl:

"[1]In this case, [students are] only repeating what they've been taught. [2] For years, they have been told that discrimination is the highest crime of all. [3] Today, this is commonly interpreted to mean that everybody has the right to be free from any kind of insult, upset, or perturbation that might pose a challenge to their peace of mind ..."

1. On the basis of nearly 20 years of teaching at 3 different universities, I can assure you that that very few students are inclined to simply accept as gospel truth whatever their professors tell them. And most of them would be insulted by the suggestion.

2. I am sure that many professors have told their students that unwarranted discrimination -- i.e., that not based on relevant differences -- is a bad thing. It is, after all, a bad thing. But the "highest crime of all" -- worse than rape, murder, genocide? That's just crazy talk. Even if the odd professor has made a claim along these lines, it would almost certainly be hyperbole.

3. Even if discrimination were the highest crime -- which it isn't -- that wouldn't entail that any insult, etc. counts as discrimination. Issues having to do with the nature of discrimination are simply orthogonal to issues having to do with the seriousness of discrimination. Even if the "common" interpretation is common, it's certainly not well motivated. And, well, probably not very common either.

Museum pieces

Margaret Somerville says, "Legalizing euthanasia causes death and dying to lose the moral context within which they must be viewed." The moral context to which she refers is the presumption of an inviolable sanctity of life; and the slippery slope of legalization she invokes is one wherein this putative sanctity loses its trumping force in moral decision-making. This is, of course, all old hat -- her argument might even be described as quaint but for its often deleterious impact on people's lives and deaths.

Even if life had some such sanctity, contra Somerville, considerations of pain and suffering, social isolation, autonomy, and, yes, even health care costs could provide relevant grounds for overriding it. But the putative sanctity of life is merely a religious relic: a museum piece rather than the centerpiece of serious public -- or even academic -- debate.

Yes, euthanasia legislation is a thorny business. A delicate balance needs to be found between respecting autonomy in life and death decisions, preventing abuse, and protecting lives that remain valuable to those leading them. And uncomfortable as it may be, the costs of sustaining unsalvageable lives may relevant as well. Reverting to a medieval morality, as Somerville would have us do, is unlikely to be of much help here.

Note: now that Rex has gone (at least from the pages of the G&M), I seem to be reduced to criticizing various Margarets. To any charge of sexism that might ensue, I simply appeal to the authority of Margaret Wente when she "argues" that "silent sexism" is a mere chimera created for self-interested reasons by the victimization industry.