We are, supposedly, a sensitive people. In our inclusive, pluralistic, post-modern world we now realize that it is a terrible thing to offend others. Therefore, we avoid any allusions to the deity when speaking in public, lest we might offend an atheist, and are careful not to bring red and green cookies to a “Winter” celebration lest we might offend a non-Christian. Nonetheless, this hypersensitivity does not extend to everyone. Being as ultra-careful not to offend others as we are, it remains politically correct to castigate defenders of traditional marriage as bigots and pro-lifers as fanatics.
Also on the unprotected list, a fairly recent inclusion, are those who support the sanctity of life. In a statement entitled “The Sanctity of Life,” posted on the Internet where anyone can read it, Peter Singer illustrates that when it comes to certain groups there is no place for civil restraint. The Chair of Princeton University’s bioethics department predicts that “the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological and demographic developments. By 2040, it may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct.” For Dr. Singer, only dummies will hold to the sanctity of life.
Singer’s broadsword is not only offensive, but contemptuous. Nonetheless, political correctness was never supposed to be consistent. It is, after all, political and not moral, having no relationship whatsoever with the natural law. Some of Shakespeare’s characters had a skill at invective, but their targets were far from people who defended the sanctity of life. In All’s Well That Ends Well, an irate King demands that Bertram exercise his duty “Or I will throw thee from my care forever into the staggers and the careless lapse of youth and ignorance” (Act II, iii). In Troilus and Cressida, Thersites, a deformed and scurrilous Grecian, has this impertinent thing to say to Patroclus, his commander: “The common curse of mankind, folly and ignorance, be thine in great revenue! Heaven bless thee from a tutor, and discipline not come near thee!” (Act II, iii). It never occurred, however, to any of Shakespeare’s characters to rail against those who defended the sanctity of life. But, then again, the Bard was not a citizen of the post-modern world.
At any rate, we may ask, who might these poor benighted souls of the future be? Kofi Annan, who served as the United Nation’s’ Secretary-General from 1996 to 2006, would seem to be a good candidate. He has apparently incriminated himself by stating that “In the 21st century, I believe the mission of the United Nations will be defined by a new, more profound awareness of the sanctity and dignity of every human life, regardless of race or religion.”
Pope Francis, presumably would be another. He delivered the following message to his audience at the annual Day for Life in Britain and Ireland: “All life has inestimable value even the weakest and most vulnerable, the sick, the old, the unborn and the poor, are masterpieces of God’s creation, made in his own image, destined to live forever, and deserving of the utmost reverence and respect” (July 28, 2013). The Holy Father improved his candidacy for Singer’s cast of “know-nothings” when during his celebration of “Evangelium Vitae Day, he said: “All too often as we know from experience, people do not choose life, they do not accept the ‘Gospel of Life’ but let themselves be led by ideologies and ways of thinking that block life, that do not respect life, because they are dictated by self-interest, profit, power and pleasure, and not by love, by concern for the good of others. . . As a result, the living God is replaced by fleeting human idols which offer the intoxication of a flash of freedom, but in the end bring new forms of slavery and death” (June 16, 2013).
Singer is not content with winning a debate; he wants to downgrade and humiliate his opponents. But this is not the mark of a good philosopher. Philosophical disagreement should involve ideas more than people. The sanctity of life, God’s living seal on the human soul, will persist as an idea not only because of its truth, but because it is imprinted in our being.