"But why would a freethinker say infanticide was wrong?
One of my favorite freethinkers is Ingersoll.
"It may be that the human race might be physically improved if all the sickly and deformed babes were killed, and if all the paupers, liars, drunkards, thieves, villains, and vivisectionists were murdered. All this might, in a few ages, result in the production of a generation of physically perfect men and women; but what would such beings be worth - men and women healthy and heartless, muscular and cruel - that is to say, intelligent wild beasts?
"When the angel of pity is driven from the heart; when the fountain of tears is dry - the soul becomes a serpent crawling in the dust of a desert."
Now to put this concept into premises for you. When we permit brutal acts of human hurt we desensitize ourselves to all brutality and all behaviors that fly in the face of existence and quality of existence. A person either wants to live or he doesn't. To those who do not this discussion is really irrelevant. To those who wish to exist, it is necessary to ask what is to be valued in order to make life happen and in order to make it happy. It is obvious that freedom and safety are key issues in survival and for happiness. Whenever these two rights are threatened individually--so is the social guarantee within community. Therefore, any individual act of infanticide is an act which impacts extremely negatively on the rights and freedoms of all people because if it can be right for one then a reliance upon the inviolability of human rights and freedoms and protection from initiated force is no longer certain.
So in order to answer the question of "is infanticide moral or immoral", we ask: Is it hurtful or helpful? As the most essential rights of all people are for safety and freedom from force and hurt, and as an infant is a person--it is quite clear that infanticide is immoral. Add to that the fact that acts of brutality and cruelty are bound to erode the natural sympathies of people and society and we find that our repugnance to the suggestion of infanticide is as evident in our hearts as in our ideas. And that takes us back to Ingersoll.
Let me make it even more simple: If it is right to hurt others then it is right for us to be hurt because a logical law must be without prejudice. Conversely, if it is wrong to hurt others then it is wrong to be hurt by others because the fundamental aspect of person hood is simply person hood--not color, not age, not religion.
So if you are a freethinker with a rational mind you need only ask yourself whether you want to live in a community where force and hurt are aberrant and safety and freedom are upheld--or whether you want to live as an irrational brute with the sword as your logic and superstition as your guide. The answer to a rational person is obvious. |
