Neocon Bioethics: The Love-In
At this conference, those who read Leon Kass Don't ask for a lot of diversity (of any kind) at the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity's 12th Annual International Conference. Pretty much everyone on the speakers list is on the record as being in agreement on pretty much all of the issues at hand. Think of this conference, in fact, as a kind of a revival for the long-ago converted conservatives in bioethics, as well as a workshop on how conservatives can use the media and the church to achieve political power. And - good news - you can trade in your three days of neocon biopower training at Trinity International University, along with a paper on "engaging bioethics ... in contemporary life" with "a biblical-theological mandate," for four hours of graduate credit toward a bioethics degree. And you will never have to read anyone whose view differs from your own!
One wonders: where is William Saletan? Saletan spends so much time bemoaning shallow utilitarianism among liberals in bioethics, in contrast to what he sees as incredibly thoughtful discourse among acolytes of Leon Kass and members of the Italian pro-life community. William, perhaps you should ditch the next undergraduate bioethics conference on your agenda and instead make some time to visit the folks in bioethics who really agree with each other. It will be more fun than ratings day at Fox News Channel.
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
Birds of a feather flock together, right? Can't same criticism be made of the writers who gather around the American Journal of Bioethics or the Journal of Medical Ethics?
- by Michael Cook on Apr 11, 2005 at 4:54 AM | link
Mr. Cook beat me to the comment. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy reading blog.bioethics.net, but where is the diversity on this site?
- by A. Tsai on Apr 11, 2005 at 11:00 AM | link
Ah, I see some others have already beat me as well.
Really, as if there is no preaching to the choir occuring at ASBH meetings? When was the last time in a paper session that there was true disagreement?
Other than the absurd protesting of Kass at the last meeting and the debate over whether to take positions as a society which continues, I do not recall any real debate at ASBH meetings either.
More of the pot calling the kettle black. I really would expect more from someone who is supposed to be a leader in the field. If you're going to criticise, at least criticise an argument.
Last time I checked one was supposed to respect autonomy in bioethics, that includes respecting the autonomy of those who practice bioethics to also practice their faith.
- by Daughter of St. John on Apr 11, 2005 at 1:35 PM | link
These are fair criticisms.
At the same time, they are a bit hard to swallow, when right-wing religious conservatives, up to the very top of government, are busy making biopolitical moves without much respect for diversity or autonomy either.
I guess it is not easy to keep an open mind in a culture war.
- by geodude on Apr 11, 2005 at 5:16 PM | link
The only cross-overs that I've seen are Edmund Peligrino and Robert Orr. But, do you think that's CBHD's fault, or have Kilner, Cameron, Cheshire, Cook, etc. been invited to present at ASBH and refused?
I'm a Trinity student. I'll bet that I read more "diverse" material than students at Albany, Penn, or Georgetown. What would the results be if a student at the latter quoted
J. Budziszewski ?
- by Beverly on Apr 17, 2005 at 11:16 AM | link
I doubt that thoughts on 'which side is more tolerant of diversity' based on personal intuitions is very helpful.
For example: I would also speculate that Peter Singer won't be getting invitations to speak about euthanasia and neonates at CBHD anytime soon.
But what follows from this? That the people at CBHD are intolerant dogmatists? No. That's jumping the gun. There are other, more charitable and self-reflective interpretations.
One is that the room for dialogue in a pluralist society is not limitless. For both secular and religious bioethicists, there is a point where we all hit non-negotiables, and we reach an impasse.
Perhaps you are saying liberals should both be more openminded than they are. But I see no real proof that they are any more closeminded than conservatives are, and I see no reliable test of openmindedness in sight.
All I can see is that there are dangers with both closemindedness and openmindedness. Closemindedness is hardly a virtue, but as Quine put it, no one should be so openminded that their brains fall out.
- by geodude on Apr 18, 2005 at 2:48 AM | link