The strange mind of Roy Hattersley, and the real religious zealots governing us today

[egb_hibs]

The article this link will take you to is about abortion.

Link

However, I do not wish to debate abortion, and will only refer to abortion related content to make points about rational analysis and so on. My interest is rather in the implications of this passage. I have numbered some key sentences which I will refer to in my subsequent analysis of these implications:

"1 The arguments in favour of examining the workings of the Abortion Act are far too important to be left to the Catholic church. For, on the evidence of recent pronouncements, the British hierarchy is unwilling to set out the moral imperatives that should determine policy on the subject. On the BBC's Today programme last week, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, kept repeating that public opinion supported the view that the 24-week limit on legal termination should be revised. And the Most Reverend Peter Smith, Archbishop of Cardiff, claimed that pictures of a foetus apparently "walking in the womb" had "touched people's hearts". 2The date on which an unborn child can be destroyed is not a matter that can be decided by popular suffrage. 3 It is a question of right and wrong.

4 Humanists should fill the moral vacuum. 5 We put respect for human life at the heart of our creed and we pride ourselves in pursuing that central tenet of belief with uncompromising logic rather than reliance on mysticism or magic. The rules that should govern an ethically acceptable policy on abortion are not difficult to define. 6 Metaphysics aside, it is reasonable to conclude that the new human being begins when the foetus is capable of independent life. Before that, an abortion is undesirable but tolerable. After that, it is only acceptable in the most extreme cases. They do not include the psychological trauma of the expectant mother. A civilised society does not kill one person in order to alleviate the distress of another, no matter how traumatic it may be."

Okay - let's explore this rather disturbing text.

Hattersley appears to me to be asserting the right of a religious-style movement to dictate social values, without reference to democracy. Allow me to elucidate:

Hattersley comes out of the traps by dismissing alternative religous claimants to moral authority (1) and then subsequently makes clear that nor do the populace have a claim on defining social morality (2).

conclusion 1 - Hattersley appears to assert that the moral direction of society belongs in the hands of a religious group he calls 'humanists. Moreover in dismissing the consequence of the representation of rival religions, he appears to hint at the a fundamentalist character on behalf of this group.

Moving on - Hattersley gets himself into a blithering knot that reveals the wobbliness of fundamentalist creeds when exposed to rational analysis:

Hattersley asserts that the central credo of his faith is a belief in 'uncompromising logic' (5).

However he then goes on to mount his argument on a series of anti-rational predicates. He begins "Metaphysics aside, it is reasonable to conclude that the new human being begins when the foetus is capable of independent life". In fact of course this sentence is absolutely inverted:

Reason incontrovertibly states that physical human life starts at conception. Hattersley's statement is in fact the metaphysical one - presumably using the term human here to mean a subjectively defined condition that exists seperately from and above mere physical attributes, in short - a metaphysical idea.

Let's take a little detour to put this in context - imagine a parallel earth which is slightly different to our own:

On this earth, the abrahamic faiths still adhere to ideas they had in their primitive forms, and most famously articulated by aquinas - surrounding the insertion of the soul coming around about 12 weeks into foetal development. consequently these faiths permit abortion prior to this point.

meanwhile, in this world, the humanist religion is actually based on reason, not the fulfilling of a priori idealogical agendas. they consequently value human life from conception and are as a result militantly opposed to abortion at any point.

In this world, Roy's statement would read "Metaphysics aside, it is reasonable to conclude that the new human being begins at conception" - and this statement, in either world, would possess, fwiw the attribute of 'reason'. Anyway, I digress...

The subtleties of Hattersley's delusions described above, become somewhat moot, given he has previously betrayed his hand with (3). This statement makes a mockery of subsequent assertions in 5 & 6, being based on concepts 'right or wrong' which do not proceed from reason.

Conclusion 2 Given Hattersley has previously dismissed alternative sources of moral judgement, we can conclude that, in fact, what he is stating is that his church is the supreme arbiter of right or wrong, without reference to reason, rival faiths or the populace. His subsequent ramblings reveal nothing but a poor attempt at latter day jesuitical sophistry.

All this leads me to a rather worrying...

Conclusion 3 It is a matter of serious concern to establish whether Roy Hattersley is merely a lone crank representing a religion that exists only in his imagination, or whether such a group exists within the corridors of power that he used to walk.

If it does I for one am concerned that public policy is being shaped by religious fanatics with a fundamentalist, anti-democratic and anti-rational agenda.

And you should be concerned too.

[Colr]

Given that politicians are drawn from society as a whole it is unavoidable that there will be a few religious fanatics in their but, in particular, the prerequisite for such a career - the desire to tell everyone else what they should do - will be attractive to those with a legal bent (obviously) and those with a vision to impose, whether that comes from a religious conviction or a psuedo-religious philosophy (e.g. Marxism).

I don't necessarily have a problem with this as views debated in parliament should represent the spectrum of approaches. It becomes a problem in an authoritarian government which imposes its view becasue it thinks it knows best.

My view on abortion changed when I saw the scan of my baby at 10 weeks (especially one enduring characteristic - which bodes well for his football career). However, the debate-especially that pushed by the moralists - seems to willfully miss the point.

The way to stop abortion which is, to be frank, morally wrong but is also practically necessary, is to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

That is an area that the Catholic church, in particular, can be found wanting but all sides largely ignore to engage in a game of moralistic willy-waving. Its depressing.

Don't want to bring Haxel Blears and her Opus Dei connections in here?

[arthurduncan]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

5 We put respect for human life at the heart of our creed and we pride ourselves in pursuing that central tenet of belief with uncompromising logic rather than reliance on mysticism or magic. The rules that should govern an ethically acceptable policy on abortion are not difficult to define.

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

Hattersley asserts that the central credo of his faith is a belief in 'uncompromising logic' (5).

You have misread him - he points out that the central credo is respect for human life which is pursued with uncompromising logic - not that his central credo is uncompromising logic. There is a big difference - one makes you a humanist (which I have argued for on here before), the other if anything makes you a rabid rationalist (which I have argued against on here).

I should say I don't necessarily agree with his argument although on balance I probably do agree that abortion is a necessary "evil". I also agree that I think such moral decisions need to be made by human beings based on a careful reflection and discussion on what the right thing to do is, rather than reading a book (Bible) or being told by someone else (Pope?) or by star signs (horoscope) or auras (crystals) etc. etc. BTW, interestingly, I also think science doesn't give us an answer here - it just provides helpful evidence like foetal scans and information on when foetus' can survive.

Anyway, onwards and upwards.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Colr

Given that politicians are drawn from society as a whole it is unavoidable that there will be a few religious fanatics in their but, in particular, the prerequisite for such a career - the desire to tell everyone else what they should do - will be attractive to those with a legal bent (obviously) and those with a vision to impose, whether that comes from a religious conviction or a psuedo-religious philosophy (e.g. Marxism).

I don't necessarily have a problem with this as views debated in parliament should represent the spectrum of approaches. It becomes a problem in an authoritarian government which imposes its view becasue it thinks it knows best.

My view on abortion changed when I saw the scan of my baby at 10 weeks (especially one enduring characteristic - which bodes well for his football career). However, the debate-especially that pushed by the moralists - seems to willfully miss the point.

The way to stop abortion which is, to be frank, morally wrong but is also practically necessary, is to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

That is an area that the Catholic church, in particular, can be found wanting but all sides largely ignore to engage in a game of moralistic willy-waving. Its depressing.

Don't want to bring Haxel Blears and her Opus Dei connections in here?

Don't you mean Ruth Kelly? Given that I agree with your first paragraph, I to have no problem with the principle. However Ms Kelly has been thoroughly examined by the press, and her claims to sources of moral authority are quite visible to members of the electorate who take an interest. I am not aware that Hattersley's cult have been subject to the same scrutiny. I would also like to understand what Hattersley's claims as a source of moral authority.

I'm not going to pick up on the points about abortion here - as I previously stated that's not the subject I'm trying to engage. That said, I'd be interested at some point in how you view the affect on your views caused by viewing the scan - do you conclude that this provoked a rational response on your part or did it stimulate an emotional response that trumped your reason?

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by arthurduncan

You have misread him - he points out that the central credo is respect for human life which is pursued with uncompromising logic - not that his central credo is uncompromising logic. There is a big difference - one makes you a humanist (which I have argued for on here before), the other if anything makes you a rabid rationalist (which I have argued against on here).

I should say I don't necessarily agree with his argument although on balance I probably do agree that abortion is a necessary "evil". I also agree that I think such moral decisions need to be made by human beings based on a careful reflection and discussion on what the right thing to do is, rather than reading a book (Bible) or being told by someone else (Pope?) or by star signs (horoscope) or auras (crystals) etc. etc. BTW, interestingly, I also think science doesn't give us an answer here - it just provides helpful evidence like foetal scans and information on when foetus' can survive.

Anyway, onwards and upwards.

I accept the distinction you make in your first sentence, but I don't think it materially affects my points. Hattersley explicitly rejects metaphysical argument and then immediately employs it. He also fails in his application of logic in support of his metaphysical position. Furthemore I see no more evidence that he is doing anything other than acting as a 'pope' per your second paragraph.

Finally, your point regarding evidence provided by foetal scans does not support the Hattersley postion in a rational way. I'm not saying that was your intention but I could imagine him saying something similar in support of his views. Hattersley's apparent metaphysical concept of humanity based upon autonomous capability for survival would also exclude infants, the disabled, those on life support apparatus or even essential medication, and many others. Roy can invent labels as he likes, but my point is that this is ungrounded in any rational definition of the physical reality of human life. It is metaphysical and irrational or, at best, supra-rational.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

I would also like to understand what Hattersley's claims as a source of moral authority.

I would extend that to every politician? no?

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

I'm not going to pick up on the points about abortion here - as I previously stated that's not the subject I'm trying to engage. That said, I'd be interested at some point in how you view the affect on your views caused by viewing the scan - do you conclude that this provoked a rational response on your part or did it stimulate an emotional response that trumped your reason?

It didn't affect my views towards the principle but it beacame a lot less abstract. It must be a terrible thing to go through and the more we can do to make abortion unneccessary the better.

Pregnacy is pretty abstratct for guys until you're holding them. Scans are the point which bring reality into that abstraction. never foregt my first view of him stretching and kicking his legs like crazy at 10 weeks - especially as the legs were still going like crazy when he was born and have doen ever since (which make him a bit of a handful now he's up on them!!!). You see small elements of personality even that early on. They certainly aren't inanimate groups of cells.

Maybe another thread, though.