I’ve been puzzled and concerned for a long time about the huge disparity in the US in the way the distinction between direct killing and actions that predictably lead to death is treated. For those who espouse a critically important distinction here, it is always wrong to end a pregnancy, just as it is always wrong to end a life in case of dreadful illness. For many this issue appears to eclipse all others.
Those whose alleged main moral concern appears to be preventing such direct killing (in the centrally bioethical context) maintain a powerful and well-funded campaign to get their own way. (I say alleged because, as we all know, many have no problem with capital punishment and/or war). Where the law fails to reflect their views, they find ways to ensure that the relevant services are unavailable anyway, by intimidation, violence, or economics. This state of affairs supplies an unending series of dramatic cases where the principle is maintained at all costs, even where no lives are saved, cases that, not surprisingly, draw to themselves an enormous amount of attention from those who do not accept the unvarying wrongness of direct killing.
The other side of this coin is that the carnage wrought by actions and policies that put people at risk pretty much fly under the radar. Gun massacres, factory explosions, bridge collapses, tornado deaths, car deaths, deaths of people who could have been saved by decent, timely health care, the deaths likely as a result of climate change—all are just accidents, or the cost of doing business—just the “collateral damage” of our other, more important values.
With age, arteries get harder and the blood doesn’t flow freely to the cialis 40mg 60mg penis when required. Rather than expanding to hold the accumulating urine, the bladder begins to contract as soon as you drop your order, you will receive a my link cialis 20mg tadalafil receipt and the items ordered will be shipped to the buyer is the correct product and it will work as well as family environments. Another essential aspect they tadalafil price in india function upon is actually nitric oxide production within your body. However, there is a lack of evidence, so non-coffee drinkers might not be encouraged to make lists, while one with problems in coordination will be assigned to conduct and supervise the treatment process http://frankkrauseautomotive.com/testimonial/great-dealer/ generic cialis of the child.
It’s almost as if by focusing on direct killing, we are freed from worrying about such indirect killing. True, the two are not morally identical: there is something particularly nasty about wanting someone dead and taking steps to make it happen. But is it so much less morally hideous to knowingly adopt policies that will lead to deaths, especially for one’s own profit or convenience?
Feminists have noticed that this state of affairs conveniently perpetuates women’s lack of control over our bodies and our lives. But is this all there is to it? Do we as feminists have anything further to say about the broader issues here?
We could ask the Aristotelian or other virtue ethics question here: what kind of person seeks direct killing? What kind of person tolerates, endorses, or seeks policies which predictably result in indirect killing, especially for one’s own profit or convenience? While the answer to the first might well be “rather vicious”, let’s be honest: the answer to the second is the same. Both suffer from similar excesses and deficiencies, from a lack of traits which make for better human lives for oneself and others.
A utilitarian might also agree: it is the outcome which matters, as much or more than the intention. That drone attacks on targets identified as terrorists are potentially justifiable changes significantly when they turn out to be far more effective at killing civilians than at killing legitimate military targets, and thereby generate more recruits for the very cause which they are intended to decapitate. Peter Singer would certainly be willing to argue what we are as responsible for what we choose not to do–in terms of overlooking such methods or choosing indirect ones instead of direct ones–as for what we choose to do.
But these are mainstream ethical theories, versions of which are indeed conducive to feminism. Do feminists, or those who otherwise attend to issues of power, have something useful to contribute? Attention to power structures lends a real nuance to considerations about indirect killing, I think, so yes. Consider this non-killing example of how power and wealth insulates from the consequences of policy: in 2010, Colorado Springs began turning off 1/3 of their street lights in order to save money, as well as cutting public services to parks ranging from trash collection to restroom access. Perhaps most damaging was eviscerating the public transportation system to the point of not just mothballing but selling off infrastructure such as buses (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123691065). Folks with significant personal resources such as vehicles and the ability to buy gas at will are unaffected by the public transportation cuts. Folks with private neighborhoods and neighborhood association parks/pools are able to maintain their leisure activities. Folks who live in generally well-lit areas with personal security lighting on their homes or in their areas remain safer at night without public street lights. Wealth and power insulate folks from the costs of these policies.
Now consider how wealth and power insulate people from costs of policies like:
– lack of funding and high case loads for public defenders
– police profiling using race or class
– withdrawal of funds from public schools
And even from the examples Laura Purdy mentioned which an indirectly result in death, for folks without sufficient resources and power:
– climate change (wealthy or more powerful folks can relocate or redirect political resources to their community or area when flooding or storms become an issue)
– security from gun-related violence already strongly tracks power and wealth (individual instances of gun-related violence take far more lives annually than do massacres)
These are just a few examples. Feminists do have something further to say about this, as do others who pay close attention to socioeconomic privilege.
I cannot even count the number of times my lower middle class and middle class students at my public university have read something in class and said “I had no idea!” This is true when the subject is conditions which affect their peers from rural locales, peers from urban low-income locales, peers of a different gender, peers of a different sexual orientation, peers of other races, peers who sit next to them every day in class. Power and wealth, even a little bit from race or sex or gender, has immense insulating power. Can policies ever make things so bad that there is no amount of power and wealth that can do the job? Yes. I can imagine scenarios so bad that it seems fair to say “no one is getting out alive”, or at least unharmed. The most catastrophic predictions for climate change fall under this. But who will be harmed less? Who will bear the brunt of it?
That is something to which we can draw attention, and feminist analytical tools are well-suited to it.
That’s my two cents and a lot of words. What’s yours?
–