"𝗣𝗥𝗢-𝗟𝗜𝗙𝗘𝗥" 𝗠𝗔𝗥𝗜𝗤𝗨𝗘 𝗦𝗖𝗜𝗕𝗘𝗥𝗥𝗔𝗦' 𝗜𝗟𝗟𝗢𝗚𝗜𝗖 𝗪𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗 𝗟𝗘𝗔𝗗 𝗢𝗡𝗘 𝗧𝗢 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗖𝗟𝗨𝗗𝗘 𝗜𝗧 𝗜𝗦 𝗠𝗢𝗥𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗠𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗕𝗟𝗘 𝗧𝗢 𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗘 𝗔𝗣𝗘𝗦 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗙𝗨𝗡.

Net News decided to give us a good laugh on Christmas day, with an interview and an article entitled “If you agree with abortion, you must feel morally good with the killing of newborn babies because both (fetuses and newborns) are developing”. And to make the comparison even more ridiculous, in the interview and the rest of the article, newborns are replaced by one-year-olds. Now let’s see how they came up with this gem of a conclusion.

The article is based on a televised interview with anesthetist Marique Sciberras, who repeatedly “reminds us” throughout the interview that it is a scientifically proven fact that life begins at conception (I have already debunked this argument here). Dr Sciberras tells us that “in truth we know that (the foetus) is a human person that is developing, a development that never stops”. “(The foetus) still remains a baby that is developing just like a one-year-old baby is developing”. Dr Sciberras goes on to say that the “baby” in the uterus and the pregnant woman are both different organisms with the “baby” developing by itself with the mother’s help”.

Let’s ignore that the fact that life begins at conception (actually even before that – sperm is very much alive) is morally irrelevant, as I have shown in the link above. Let us even ignore the fact that development does stop when an organism or a person dies (a doctor should certainly know this fact). Let’s even overlook the fact that development by itself is not grounds for moral consideration given that even plants develop. I have said enough about this in the write-up I have already linked to above. Let us instead consider the main point Dr Sciberras apparently wished to make, the one that both she and apparently even Net Live presenter Robert Cremona thought so intelligent and unassailable that it was chosen as the heading of the article accompanying the televised interview.

Dr Sciberras tells us that several philosophers have come up with a set of criteria, among them consciousness and independence (and I would add, most importantly, having an experiential welfare that enables one to have any kind of interests and desires), that make one a person. There I was, thinking she was finally making sense, when she comes up with the following gem that made me momentarily suspect the interview was actually parody.

“However, one cannot consider these criteria for several reasons”, Dr Sciberras tells us. “If we analyze these things, this theory tells us that an ape is nearly more of a person that a new-born baby or a four-month-old baby, so this leads us to conclude that one must feel morally entitled to perform infanticide. Killing children because you got fed up with them, basically”. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Yes, you have read that right. According to Dr Sciberras, the criteria leave you only one choice: kill "children" because adult non-human apes are more consciously aware than human infants! Now here's a thought, Dr Sciberras: how about protecting both because both have an experiential welfare?

I will readily concede that one philosopher (Peter Singer) does claim that it may morally be permissible to kill infants, because according to him they are not “persons” that have an interest in staying alive (even though he is quick to note that it would be still wrong to kill most infants for other reasons, which I need not go into). However, virtually all other philosophers (particularly those who hold the interests view, including philosophers who argue for animal rights) disagree, which leads me to conclude that either Dr Sciberras has only read Singer (I doubt she even did that), or she is intentionally misrepresenting all other philosophers, or what is even more likely, that she has not read any philosophy at all.

The fact that apes are endowed with sentience and consciousness to a noticeably high degree (in fact, most if not all non-human animals do to some degree), far from giving us the right to kill infants (why would Dr Sciberras reach this conclusion – I don’t suppose it would be because she wants to maintain a right to kill apes!), would strongly suggest that we are morally required to include apes (and other animals) as beings with rights. The interests view essentially concludes that any and only beings who are endowed with a sufficiently developed brain that enables them to experience the world (which at the bare minimum includes the capacity for pleasure and pain which makes them subjects with an experiential welfare that may fare better or worse) may be sensibly included in our moral consideration and may have a right to life because it matters to them. Inanimate things or beings not capable of having an experiential welfare and therefore unable to will anything (not even the avoidance of pain if they were actually capable of experiencing it – which they couldn’t) clearly don’t. One cannot harm that which cannot be harmed. I elaborate on the implications of the interests view with regards to abortion and animal rights here.

The interests view holds that all beings capable of having an experiential welfare have a right to moral consideration and may only be harmed given morally sufficient exceptional reasons such as self-defense or the preservation of one’s life and health. The rational conclusion from this view is that all sentient animals (of course including sentient humans) have at the very least the right to moral consideration, and arguably a right to life and against the infliction of harm that may only be overridden in exceptional cases such as I have just mentioned.

I fail to see how (except for intellectual laziness, ignorance, or duplicity) could someone such as Dr Sciberras claim that since apes are sentient and conscious, instead of logically granting apes (like humans) moral consideration and protection (as virtually all contemporary and recent philosophers with access to modern science conclude), actually concludes that this means that we may kill one-year-olds. I would think that the only people who would come up with such a ridiculous conclusion would have to be people who would wish to kill apes (who, incidentally are legally protected in most countries), and so self-interestedly argue that sentience and consciousness are not a sufficient criterion for according rights. But I doubt that Dr Sciberras is a “poacher”, which would leave either ignorance or duplicity as the reason behind that ridiculous assertion. Most of us would rather consistently protect apes (and other animals) than consistently kill one-year-olds. There’s no reason to suppose Dr Sciberras would not too.

The criteria that Dr Sciberras alludes to, if applied consistently, would protect both non-human apes AND human infants, for precisely the same reasons. Dr Sciberras bizarrely decides to offhandedly dismiss those criteria simply because their rational conclusion does not tally with her own prejudiced opinions. Any preconceived opinion that is not backed by rational arguments applicable to relevantly similar cases is just prejudice, and may be dismissed as such. Conclusions from rationally sound, consistent and disinterested arguments, on the other hand, deserve to be addressed, acknowledged or accepted. The first and necessary rule of justice is impartiality.

The Net News interview could have qualified as good parody were it not a misguided seriously flawed interview lacking even a basic understanding of philosophy. I would describe it in one word: Embarrassing.

First published on Facebook on 26 December 2022.