Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 17th May 2008 Change Date

Free A to Z of Scotland's Munros

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Missing the point



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Dr Calum MacKellar (Letters, 10 May) seems to be a little confused about my letter (9 May) and the practice of bioethics.
I have no problem with people who hold different world views being represented on "social discussion bodies". The point I was making, and that Dr MacKellar fails to address, is that the Scottish Council on Bioethics adopts a conservative and stereo
typically "religious" position on everything, which it would not do if it engaged objectively and philosophically with the issues. Perhaps he could point to another "non-religious" bioethics organisation that offers similar arguments and positions.

Dr MacKellar also says it's strange that I suggest "ignoring anyone who may be offended by a certain procedure". In fact, it's strange to suggest otherwise. Some fundamentalist Muslims are offended by women who don't do as they're told; does this mean these women are harming those they offend? The infliction of harm is certainly offensive, but it's an elementary logical error to think this means being offensive is harmful. If this is the standard of argument advanced by the council's director of research, it doesn't bode well for their policy positions.

(DR) DAVID SHAW

University of Glasgow

Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow

There is a logical error in David Shaw's argument (Letters, 9 May) that because some views of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics correspond to views held by religious organisations the council cannot consider itself non-religious. This is equivalent to saying that because our laws against murder, theft and perjury are also found in the Ten Commandments they must be religiously based and, by implication, non-rational.

By describing the creation of human-animal hybrids as "offensive" the council lays itself open to Dr Shaw's valid criticism that offensiveness is in the eye of the offended.

You do not have to be a Christian to share the Christian view that there are avenues in biological research down which we should not be tempted to go.

ANTHONY ROBSON

St John's Place

Perth







The full article contains 333 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 11 May 2008 7:41 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 12/05/2008 00:39:43
'The point I was making, and that Dr MacKellar fails to address, is that the Scottish Council on Bioethics adopts a conservative and stereotypically "religious" position on everything...'.

The stereotype is in your own mind and is of your own creation, David. Not all religiously minded people accept the views of the SCOB. Not all those who accept them are religiously minded. There is, I would suggest, no logical connection between Christianity and the views in question on bioethics.
2

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 12/05/2008 08:42:08

'Perhaps he could point to another "non-religious" bioethics organisation that offers similar arguments and positions.'

I think that he could. See, for instance the organisation: Comment on Reproductive Ethics at: http://www.corethics.org/index.php?c=a

Of course, the same defective argument might be repeated: they are not really a non-religious organisation because some or many of their members can be identified as religious believers.
3

E Hess,

Leith 12/05/2008 20:34:56
At least Dt says he has no problem with people who hold different world views being represented on "social discussion bodies", by which I trust he includes the newspaper's online feedback. However, I wonder to what extent he is speaking for the entire University of Glasgow when he repeatedly protests that its fine to be offensive as a matter of principle? Or are his bigotted and innuendo-filled personalised attacks merely a reflection of his own opinion?
4

E Hess,

Leith 12/05/2008 20:35:35
At least Dr Shaw says he has no problem with people who hold different world views being represented on "social discussion bodies", by which I trust he includes the newspaper's online feedback. However, I wonder to what extent he is speaking for the entire University of Glasgow when he repeatedly protests that its fine to be offensive as a matter of principle? Or are his bigotted and innuendo-filled personalised attacks merely a reflection of his own opinion?
5

Shazia Aqil,

Scotland, UK 12/05/2008 22:32:36
E Hess (#3 and #4), you only need to make your points once! However, I agree that David Shaw comes over as a bit of a bigot with a bee in his bonnet. I don't much care for his portrayal of Muslims as just expecting all women to be subserviant.
6

Ewart,

Orkney 12/05/2008 23:16:45
Professor Shaw says "it's an elementary logical error to think this means being offensive is harmful". Perhaps this depends on the consequences for oneself and one's associates of persistently offending others.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.