The Basis of Decision

It shouldn't be a matter of surprise that the Report is illogical and inconsistent. You've got to expect that when the criteria it uses for evaluating right and wrong are themselves ambiguous. The Report speaks about endeavouring "to balance human needs and human distress with philosophy and scientific fact", (p.51) That seems fair enough, if somewhat woolly. But when we see how it is applied, it takes on a different character. Two examples will illustrate this. The first, on p. 118, deals with sterilisation, the Report states, "If society accepts the right of a couple to plan their family size, then sterilisation as the most effective means of birth control and family planning should be accepted". The Report is saying that if the objective is desirable, then the means for achieving it are also desirable. The means derive their justification from the end in view; they do not require justification in themselves. In other words, the end justifies the means. Think of how that idea would apply in war. The second example is on p.211, where the Report admits fetal defect as a ground for abortion. It turns to the argument against this advanced by those who say there is no logical reason why, if this ground is admitted, anyone should exclude euthanasia for the infirm. The Report says that it appreciates the concern of these people, but then blandly ignores the logic of their point, saying, "in the minds of most people there is a clear line of distinction between abortion for fetal defect and the practice of euthanasia". The significant point here is that the Report does not question the logic of the argument. It says that if most people don't see anything wrong with something, then it isn't wrong. This is the divine right of 51%, or, in plainer language, might is right. James K. Baxter had a point when he said that the new philosophy is fascism without the name.