Tuesday, October 31, 2006
The Ethics of Anecdote
I have come to realize that most people base what is right completely on anecdotal evidence. Today, I read a short article by TV host Montel Williams (a person living with Multiple Sclerosis). There has been continuing controversy over stem cell research. Here, I briefly quote Montel Williams:
"If the headline-grabbing cowards who mock the infirm had to walk one inch in the shoes of a survivor like Michael, like me, like the millions of others across this nation and the world, they would march, albeit unsteadily, to a different beat and support all stem-cell research. Basic common sense would demand it."
He is reacting to some insensitive comments made by (Mr. Sensitive himself) Rush Limbaugh regarding Michael J. Fox (the Michael to whom he refers in the article).
I will not comment on how I feel about stem cell research, because it is not my point. My point is this: I detest the notion that I would change my position simply if I were in that person's situation. This especially riles me up on issues which I find to be so important.
Don't get me wrong-sometimes it is imperative for us to change a postion due to circumstance. But that change of position should come from underlying principles which drive that change. If my underlying priciples are changed, we have a serious problem. It makes me wonder what certain people's underlying principles are, and how they formulate them. If you believe in stem cell research in principle, so be it. The merits of it can be dealt with and debated, for that kind of dialogue is healthy. But don't ever tell me what cause I would support in a given situation. The presumptive arrogance of it is so striking as to make me furious.
"If the headline-grabbing cowards who mock the infirm had to walk one inch in the shoes of a survivor like Michael, like me, like the millions of others across this nation and the world, they would march, albeit unsteadily, to a different beat and support all stem-cell research. Basic common sense would demand it."
He is reacting to some insensitive comments made by (Mr. Sensitive himself) Rush Limbaugh regarding Michael J. Fox (the Michael to whom he refers in the article).
I will not comment on how I feel about stem cell research, because it is not my point. My point is this: I detest the notion that I would change my position simply if I were in that person's situation. This especially riles me up on issues which I find to be so important.
Don't get me wrong-sometimes it is imperative for us to change a postion due to circumstance. But that change of position should come from underlying principles which drive that change. If my underlying priciples are changed, we have a serious problem. It makes me wonder what certain people's underlying principles are, and how they formulate them. If you believe in stem cell research in principle, so be it. The merits of it can be dealt with and debated, for that kind of dialogue is healthy. But don't ever tell me what cause I would support in a given situation. The presumptive arrogance of it is so striking as to make me furious.
# posted by Unknown @ 3:34 PM 
