Homily

Recently a man told me that he was eating lunch with three co-workers, and one of the men said that he didn't have any spiritual or religious beliefs, but he did contribute to charitable organizations and did volunteer work. The question I would have loved to ask him was, "Why would you do that?" Does he assume that there is some kind of natural ethics that calls for people to donate time and money? And if he does, where does that ethic come from?

You may have heard of a famous Princeton University philosophy professor named Peter Singer. He is probably the number one promoter of an ethical system that is based on Utilitarianism. Simply put, Utilitarianism calls for moral decisions being based on what will create the greatest happiness and reduce suffering. It is very closely linked with Consequentialism—the morality of an action depends on its outcome, and Naturalism—nothing exists above or beyond the material universe.

So, for Professor Singer, there is no such thing as the Christian belief that human life is sacred and of infinite worth. Therefore, there are times when it is justifiable to kill the young. We say that abortion is wrong because from the moment of conception to birth, there is no point where we can say this baby has now become a human being whereas just a moment before this point it was not a human being. Singer agrees with this approach and he pushes it even further by saying that even after birth the status of the child doesn't really change, because in his view, neither the life in the womb NOR the life of the newborn child have any kind of "right to life."

In his moral system, since both the unborn and young children lack the rational ability and the self-awareness to desire to go on living, their lives are not of any moral value in themselves. Singer believes there should be rules, but those rules should not be based on the mistaken idea that a child's life has some value all on its own. Instead the morality of killing a child should be based on what positive effects it may have on others—creating the greatest happiness and reducing pain.

Singer gives an example: Let's say there is a child with hemophilia and the mother decides that the burden of caring for this sick child will make it impossible for her to be able to raise another child. "We have to take into account that when the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled child is killed. The loss of a happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second infant." One man wrote, under Singer's system, life is just a set of decisions based on a moral spreadsheet of figures and calculations.

Utilitarianism has a great appeal to people in our society today, as we can even see in the expression, "Do whatever makes you happy." Pro-abortion forces consider the unborn to have no intrinsic rights to their own lives. The only moral question to be asked is will this abortion bring greater happiness to the mother and/or will it lessen her pain? The so-called "woman's right-to-choose" even implies that a moral choice is being made, but it is based on how the choice will affect the woman only, not the child itself. Rather than sticking to the Christian teaching that every human life is sacred, there are many who accept the principles of Utilitarianism in moral decision-making. In fact there are people who promote this ethical system as a way of liberating society from the shackles and chains of antique Christian doctrine and allowing it to flourish and grow under enlightened and rational thought and scientific certainty. (Just like Communism did!) People also accept this ethical system for the so-called "assisted suicide" movement. If a person can choose that it would, for the greater happiness of others, not to have to take care of them, and if it would end any pain they might have, there's nothing wrong with killing yourself, or helping others to do so. Right? Increase happiness, decrease pain.

I read a story by a man who, with his wife had just adopted a baby with Down Syndrome. The baby was in the hospital for several days to have some work done. The man had spoken to the hospital chaplain several times over those days. And then one day this father went into the hospital chapel to pray and he thought of all of the lives that were snuffed out in the womb because of Down Syndrome diagnosis. (It may be that up to 90% of women who know they are carrying babies with Down Syndrome choose to have an abortion.) So as the father thought about these lives lost, he began to cry. The chaplain came over and put his hand on his shoulder and said, "Kids like yours can still lead useful and happy lives." He didn't know the child was adopted. He thought the father was crying because unexpectedly his baby was born with Down Syndrome. The father wrote that his daughter's life was not about how productive she could become, nor was it about her happiness. It was about God's love for her and her love for Him. It was about her parents' love for her and her love for them. It's certainly not about how productive or capable she might become.

Now it's true that while many accept Utilitarian principles for abortion, they would be horrified to hear of infants being killed in the name of "more happiness and less pain." And yet the longer this kind of moral thinking exists in a society, the further it is allowed to express itself and the more normal its principles seem to be accepted. Years ago in Holland they began a program of euthanasia for elderly and terminally ill patients who asked to have their lives ended. It would be all very limited, not without one's own request and permission. But over the years things have changed. Now, in Holland, they euthanize elderly and sick patients all on their own authority if the patient is not mentally competent or has no relatives who object to it. The hospital authorities decide who lives or dies. People have grown used to it—more happiness, less pain. People who accept Utilitarian morality for the unborn today will be horrified at the thought of killing infants. But given time to become accustomed to this system of ethics, attitudes begin to change, as we see in Holland.

I remember one of the arguments used when "assisted suicide" was up for a vote here was the economic argument. The chronically ill don't want to burden their families with the cost of taking care of them, so to increase happiness and decrease pain, they choose to kill themselves rather than become a burden to their families. So I ask you, can you ever see a time down the road when someone, oh, let's just say the State, decides that treating patients who are 60 years old or older, for heart conditions is just too great a burden to put on the taxpayers and since age has made them less productive, it might be better for everybody, in terms of cost and medical facilities and doctors and nurses and technicians and drugs, it might just be better for the rest of the country if they just died from their disease or opted for suicide. That could never happen could it?

Ah—King Herod of Judea! Not tied down to Jewish teaching about God's justice or the value of human life. What are a few young Bethlehem boys if it increases his happiness? If he's not happy, how can the people be happy?