Monday, March 12, 2012

One Single Argument

Throughout the ages, dark forces all over the globe have advanced one single argument, an argument which has resulted in the torment and death of millions of human beings. The contours of this argument are adjusted to fit the particular historical setting in which the argument is introduced, but the basic form of the argument remains unchanged: certain human beings are intrinsically less valuable than other human beings and may therefore be exploited or exterminated.
Neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people nor intended to be included in the general words used in [the Declaration of Independence]....They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order…and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect…[They were] bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise.
– Dred Scott vs. Sandford, 1857
There are still Jewish lackeys today who attempt to disrupt our storm attack on the Jewish world rulers, trying to stop us or even cause us to fall. The following hints show how one can reply to these arguments by our opponents, or even turn their arguments against them….
Argument 7: “The Jew is a human being too!” — Counterargument: “Of course the Jew is a human being too. None of us has ever doubted it. But a flea is also an animal. But not a very pleasant one. Since a flea is not a pleasant animal, we have no duty to protect and defend it, to take care of it so that it can bite and torment and torture us. Rather, we make it harmless. It is the same with the Jews.”
Argument 8: “Everything with a human face is equal.” — Counterargument: "Thirteen years ago, the 'Stürmer' carried a cartoon. In it, a miserable pig looked up from his sty to a royal lion. 'Everything with an animal face is equal!' But what did the lion growl in reply? 'That’s what you swine would like to think!'"
Unser Wille und Weg (Nazi publication), 1936
Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’….Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.
Journal of Medical Ethics, 2012
This one single argument is really quite strong. By any criterion that can be empirically measured, human beings are not equal. Some are strong; some are weak. Some are smart; some are stupid. Some are beautiful; some are ugly. Some are rich; some are poor. Some contribute to society; some drain society's resources. There is no scientific basis on which to assert that Albert Einstein and an AIDS orphan have the same intrinsic value.
To this formidable argument, I know of only one answer, and that answer is entirely irrational and hopelessly impractical:
Love one another as I have loved you.  - Jesus


C. Martin said...

Thanks Murray--I agree with you on this one...great article!

Daniel Kerr said...

Just ran across this... Murray.

A good collection of quotations.

By the way, the reason there may not be a good argument to that is that you are not supposed to be the one arguing reasons. The burden of proof is on the side asserting that to be human is not enough to possess basic human rights.

Well, then what is enough? I didn't see any good arguments, if there were any arguments at all, but merely assertions and a faulty analogy.

If someone accepts this claim without justification, I doubt they will listen to an authority like Jesus, whether that is in Nazi times or today.

Murray Vasser said...

Hi Daniel,

My concluding paragraph is rather sarcastic. Of course there are good, rational reasons why you should not kill children, if you are operating on correct presuppositions about reality (the existence of God, the truth of moral law, the value of humanity, etc.) However, if you are operating from the presuppositions of materialism, then there are no reasons why you should not kill those who stand in your way. In fact, it would be quite irrational not to.

Furthermore, I don't believe that I can prove that materialism is wrong. Ultimately, both materialism and theism give feasible explanations of reality. The difference between the two is that theism seems to be true. For example, even the most virulent materialist just can't help believing in moral law.

As another example, I can't prove that there is a past. The universe could have popped into existence 5 seconds ago just as it is, with the appearance of great age. I could never prove that such a theory is wrong; I just know that it is.