Latest / UK Column Radio / Ethical Sex — with Dr Anthony McCarthy

Transcript

Ethical Sex — with Dr Anthony McCarthy · UK Column Radio

0:07
Well, today I'd like to welcome to UK column Doctor Anthony
0:12
McCarthy. Now Anthony is a director and
0:15
founder of the BIOS Centre in London.
0:17
He's a visiting scholar in moral philosophy at the Theological
0:21
Institute in Trauma, Austria. He holds degrees in philosophy
0:26
from King's College London, University College London and
0:30
the University of Surrey. He's the author of Ethical Sex,
0:35
Sexual Choices and Their Nature and Meaning.
0:38
And Anthony is joining us today to speak in a personal capacity.
0:42
So welcome, Anthony, it's really great to have you here today.
0:47
And I just, you know, just want to ask you what prompted you to,
0:53
to write Ethical Ethical Sex. Well, thank you very much for
0:57
having me. So I had quite an interest in
1:01
philosophy from a young age and a particularly moral philosophy.
1:05
And so I went to study study that subject and I found that
1:13
moral philosophy was very interesting, but that the
1:15
treatments of a very important area of life, namely our our
1:19
sexual nature, received very little serious attention within
1:25
philosophy. So you had discussions in moral
1:28
philosophy about all sorts of areas of life and political
1:31
questions as well concerning property.
1:34
And there was a feeling that people would have a general
1:37
moral philosophical theory and that there was no special area
1:41
of sex, as it were. So sex was actually treated, I
1:46
think, in a very trivial way. It was treated as though it
1:48
wasn't a special area of life. And this seemed to me to
1:52
conflict very much with our own experience of, of, of this area
1:57
of life. But also it's it's importance in
2:00
society if one thinks so. I mean, one thing I thought, for
2:04
example, rape is a particularly horrendous type of crime.
2:09
But if you understand sexual ethics only in terms of consent,
2:14
basically consent is the only thing that matters, It's
2:17
actually quite hard to understand why that particular
2:20
violation of consent seems to be so devastating to seem to do
2:24
such moral damage to people. So that was sort of where I
2:28
began is is with a frustration. And I mean, a very good example.
2:34
There was the first year book called Practical Ethics by Peter
2:38
Singer. And Peter Singer is a very
2:39
extreme character. He's known for animal rights,
2:43
but also he has endorsed infanticide.
2:46
He he's a very hard line utilitarian if you like.
2:52
And at the beginning of that book, he says that sex is of no
2:55
importance at all for ethics any more than traffic regulations.
3:00
So you just have a general set of.
3:02
Rules. Yeah, You have a general set of
3:05
rules, you know, for traffic, say, and sex is just like that.
3:11
He has no special nature. And I thought, well, if you look
3:14
at all of literature, the idea of a virtue connected with, with
3:18
the sexual morality, chastity, ideas about marriage, the
3:24
seriousness of adultery, say, the importance of marriage, what
3:28
the meaning of marriage might be.
3:29
If you think about those questions seriously, you realise
3:33
it's nothing like that at all. So you wonder why in philosophy
3:38
it is so neglected. And I think downstream from
3:41
that, as it were, you have big changes in the culture and
3:47
people don't really know how to address these questions, you
3:51
know, because they keep coming back to, well, is it consensual?
3:54
Which is of course, that's a very important consideration.
3:56
There's a lot to be said about the nature of consent.
3:59
But is that all there is to, to sexual morality, whether
4:02
something is consensual or not? It seems to me not.
4:06
Quite right. And so really we're looking at
4:09
the, the, the whole sexual revolution, you know, it's
4:13
obviously reshaped and possibly distorted the meaning of sex in
4:17
a lot of ways. Do you feel that might be the
4:19
case? Yes, very much so.
4:22
And I think actually we see a lot of confusions arising from
4:29
what I would take to be a misunderstanding about the
4:33
nature of, of of sex. So I mean, the most radical sort
4:38
of change comes about with the promotion of contraception.
4:46
The The contraceptive pill obviously has very big social
4:51
consequences because it gets people very used to the idea
4:56
that sex is that there's nothing essentially about sex which
5:01
relates to procreation to to the.
5:05
Coming to be of new. And women's.
5:08
Liberation as well, women's liberation where in in a way,
5:12
this promise of, of career freedom and sexual freedom and
5:16
financial independence, which, you know, all sounds very good
5:20
on the outside, but you know, actually has it made women
5:22
happier? And I, I, I know a lot of women
5:25
at the moment who have, you know, it's led to loneliness and
5:29
and insecurity actually. So yeah, that is a whole new
5:35
area that that I think people have overlooked.
5:38
The fact that is, has it made us happier?
5:41
It hasn't made men happier either.
5:43
So yeah, I mean, do you agree with that?
5:46
Well, it's certainly, I mean, yeah, it it, it certainly hasn't
5:51
been a utopia, put it that way. And I think there are very
5:53
serious costs. So there's a question, Do you?
5:58
So it's sold in terms of an increase in your autonomy, an
6:00
increase in your range of choices, and with an increase in
6:05
your range of choices, you know, that is taken to be necessarily
6:10
a good thing. OK, now this is a general point
6:13
about choices. Actually, an extension of your
6:17
range of choices within a society creates all sorts of
6:22
social pressures that you perhaps didn't anticipate.
6:28
So 1 a consequence you might say, and this is sort of
6:34
connected with the sexual revolution is something like
6:37
abortion. So someone says that is now a
6:42
choice that can be legitimate. The the law will support you,
6:46
the medical profession will provide for for this operation
6:52
for what had once been seen as something seriously wrong or
6:55
problematic. OK, so you now have a choice you
6:59
didn't previously have. Well, an effect of having that
7:03
choice, aside from the moral question about abortion and
7:07
whether the taking of an unborn life is is morally wrong, is
7:14
that a woman who is now pregnant is starts to become viewed
7:18
differently. You don't think, well, she's
7:20
pregnant, so she's going to have a baby.
7:22
So we have to think about how to help her.
7:24
You might think, well, why the hell doesn't she have an
7:27
abortion? That's an option for her now.
7:30
So suddenly there's a social pressure that wasn't there
7:33
before because something was seen as not an option.
7:36
So it's not a. Straightforward thing is that
7:38
what you're saying it's been normalized to I think it value
7:41
life. Yeah, well, the the baseline
7:43
assumption changes. So the baseline assumption
7:45
before was this woman is pregnant and then hopefully you
7:49
think, well, if she's going to have a child, she will need some
7:52
support. What is the, the best way of, of
7:54
supporting that? But if you stay, ah, but now she
7:58
has a choice to end that pregnancy and you end the
8:00
pregnancy by destroying the unborn child.
8:05
Well, then she's in a very different position socially
8:08
because now people look upon a pregnant woman and they might
8:12
think, well, she shouldn't be pregnant or why should anyone
8:16
pay for this, You know, therefore she should go back and
8:20
destroy the child. And I think this, this, this
8:23
sort of thinking about autonomy is very dangerous.
8:27
We, we also see this with end of life debates actually that well,
8:30
why are you choosing to stay alive when you could kill
8:35
yourself? OK, if the law changes, it
8:38
changes the social pressure and the expectations upon people and
8:42
those those those things I think are underestimated.
8:46
And, and also we've, we've got this, the, the demographic
8:50
collapse in, in, you know, in, in population, in, in the
8:54
Western world where this is really having quite a
8:57
devastating effect. Birth rates are falling,
9:00
marriage is collapsing, and many women do end up childless
9:04
because not by choice, but because of circumstances as
9:07
you've just sure, of course, you know, illustrated.
9:10
So what does this reveal about our our culture's moral
9:13
direction at the moment? Well, I think by, as it were,
9:19
removing the reference of, well, the association between sexual
9:25
activity and the coming to be of children.
9:28
You remove an awful lot of institutions that traditionally
9:33
did surround that. So the first thing you do in a
9:36
sense is you weaken the very idea of marriage.
9:39
So if you think that marriage is about a man and a woman engaged
9:45
in a lifelong partnership for the rearing of children, of
9:49
course not every marriage will have children.
9:52
But the the a couple are engaged in a procreative and a unitive
9:59
kind of act, which is the kind of act that can bring children
10:02
to be. If you completely and radically
10:05
separate the idea of sexual activity from the coming to be
10:09
of a new new new life children, you actually radically change
10:15
the very nature of marriage because marriage no longer it's
10:20
no longer obvious why marriage should be, for example,
10:24
lifelong. That is very or indeed if we're
10:28
going to push it to the extreme or indeed between two people of
10:30
opposite sex, because there is no essential relation of that
10:37
institution to the child. Whereas traditionally the idea
10:40
was marriage is built around a particular kind of act, namely a
10:45
sexual act which is open to the possibility of new life of of
10:50
children. So the institution, as it were,
10:54
is built around that understanding and that's very,
10:59
as it were child centric. So the idea is that children are
11:02
parents are for the child as it were.
11:04
They are striving towards a child and they in some sense
11:06
serve that child. Now that gets reversed if you
11:10
change the nature of the institution and the act.
11:17
So if you if you change the nature of the ACT it, it somehow
11:20
loses its rationale to some extent because you're now
11:24
engaged in what's called sexual, sexual activity of some kind,
11:29
which has no relation to children and therefore no
11:32
relation to a traditional view of marriage at all.
11:35
So why should it be contained? Within marriage, but also, I
11:39
mean, it is, can it not within the family framework?
11:43
Can it not just be also an act that brings people closer and,
11:48
and develops a, a deeper understanding of each human
11:54
being? You know, the, the, the couple.
11:56
So it's, it's although the, the, the reason the, the framework is
12:01
the family and the children, but it is also hopefully deepening
12:06
the connection between the two people that create that
12:09
framework. Would you agree?
12:10
Well, absolutely, absolutely. I mean, they're not I, I, I
12:13
certainly wouldn't separate them.
12:14
I mean, someone who's overly focused on children and forgets
12:17
about, yes, the union of the couple is, is doing something
12:20
very wrong. In fact, both it's there are two
12:23
ways of going wrong, it seems to me.
12:24
One is over focus on, you know, childbirth and just having
12:28
children and neglecting the marital friendship, as it were,
12:31
in the union. The other is to only focus on
12:34
that and to deliberately exclude from that the possibility of
12:39
children and, and changing the nature of the sexual act so that
12:41
it doesn't do that. So and the idea of marriage was
12:45
that you have this lifelong commitment where you really
12:48
understand the other person is irreplaceable in some sense, so.
12:52
This brings us onto the question of then if we, if we look at the
12:56
whole LBGTQ expansion and the trans movement, you know that
13:01
that in a way that that kind of, you know, this is really a lot
13:08
of young people are getting involved in that.
13:10
What deeper philosophical or cultural forces are driving that
13:14
in, in respect to what we've just talked about?
13:18
Well, I think if you change the nature of the sexual act as as
13:22
the sort of sexual revolution tended to do, it changed the
13:24
societal understanding of it. Then very quickly it becomes
13:29
reasonable for someone to say, well, if you can engage in
13:34
sexual acts of for emotional reasons completely unrelated to
13:39
marriage, completely unrelated to the idea of building a, a
13:42
life around these acts and children and, and, and the
13:46
marital union and everything that goes with it.
13:48
Then why do you, for example, condemn homosexual activity,
13:55
say, or other forms of, of sexual activity which had
13:58
traditionally been rather condemned and sometimes in in
14:02
rather brutal ways has to be said?
14:05
Well, in a sense they have a point.
14:09
Because if you have changed the nature of the sexual act, and if
14:13
you say that that act now no longer has any sort of marital
14:17
meaning in itself, it's merely a matter of choice, then why not
14:22
engage in in other kinds of sexual activities or indeed
14:28
change the nature of marriage, which we've seen with the
14:31
legislation on same sex marriage, which completely
14:33
changes the meaning of marriage. It is now no longer has that
14:37
traditional meaning. So I think in a sense you've the
14:45
these things, as it were, follow logically.
14:47
It might take a while for society to develop, but as we've
14:50
seen, once you've changed this, you do get and you do get these
14:54
sort of changes in the LGBT area.
14:58
But you also get confusions now about the very idea of gender,
15:04
because in a sense what you've done is you've, by changing the
15:07
nature of the sexual act, you've changed the fundamental idea of
15:10
masculinity and femininity, male and female, and as our bodies as
15:14
having a kind of meaning, I would say a marital meaning.
15:19
So once you've done that, you, you don't really, I mean, the,
15:25
the, when it comes to the LGBT area, you, you, you can't really
15:32
argue, it seems to me on on grounds of traditional reality,
15:36
if you yourself have agreed with the sexual revolution.
15:40
So I mean I. Do think the, the whole thing
15:44
about sexual identity, if you can, if you can somehow separate
15:50
the biology from the identity. I feel that that this again, it
15:55
serves the a political agenda where at the moment we're, we're
15:59
we're getting this whole identity issue because if you
16:03
destroy someones identity, which basically you are, you're
16:07
destroying their sexual identity and replacing it with, with
16:11
something else. And if you can do that, it, it
16:14
kind of is very easy then to morph into the, the whole
16:19
transhumanism agenda, which I don't necessarily want to touch
16:23
on too much. But also we're talking about,
16:25
you know, digital identity, you know, if, if it's all kind of
16:29
wrapped up with the, with, with understanding who you really
16:33
are. And if you're changing who, you
16:35
know, the biology that you have, there's a danger of, of it being
16:40
almost controlled into an, into a different way.
16:44
Like when you look at the, the whole Internet of bodies and the
16:48
digital twins that they're creating.
16:50
So it does serve a purpose in the broader, if you like,
16:54
technocratic sense, yeah. No, I, I just, I think that a
16:59
lot of it stems from a down grading of the idea that our
17:03
sexual activity has a certain kind of meaning.
17:07
It relates to an institution called marriage.
17:10
It could be argued. Now, if you don't take that and
17:13
you say, well, no, I'm a creature and I have autonomous
17:17
choices and I get to decide my identity and I get to make
17:20
myself and do all these things. Okay, But then you're denying
17:26
that our bodies have a particular kind of meaning.
17:29
So are you then going to impose a meaning on things that people
17:33
had thought had a meaning in themselves or that marriage had
17:36
a particular kind of meaning or something like that?
17:39
And of course, as soon as you do that, as soon as you degrade
17:43
the, the, the idea that your maleness or femaleness has a
17:46
certain kind of meaning, which relates to biology and has many
17:51
other meanings. But of course biology is, is
17:53
fundamental. Once you do that, then of course
17:57
you get people creating their own identity, sometimes in
18:01
opposition to their, to their, their biological nature.
18:05
And that I think that does. I mean, if people ground their
18:09
identities in something that is unrelated to their, what I might
18:16
consider their, their, the, the meaning of their bodies, as it
18:21
were, the meaning of being male or female as they relate to each
18:25
other. If you define something yourself
18:28
outside of that or in opposition to that, then it seems to me
18:32
that that's a very fragile basis for an identity because it's not
18:35
actually grounded in certain things that we traditionally
18:38
have thought were, were, were required.
18:41
And if if that's the case, then politically it seems to me that,
18:48
yeah, if somebody has a great deal of power, they don't want
18:51
people to have strong grounded identities which they find, for
18:54
example, in a family. They've become much more
18:56
atomized. They've become much more
18:58
fragmentary. And the family framework does
19:02
does actually give that, that you know, that, that security
19:06
and, and stable basis for developing your own identity and
19:11
your own opinions and, and everything.
19:13
So in a way it does, it could, I mean, we, we've seen the
19:16
destruction of the family unit and that does serve a bigger
19:20
agenda. If, if, if it is all about
19:22
control, which we're seeing more and more these days now, do you
19:26
think men have been culturally encouraged to avoid
19:28
responsibility? Because this is what I'm seeing,
19:31
you know, family, you know, and adulthood.
19:33
Are we raising boys who are disconnected from fatherhood as
19:39
a as a sort of a moral calling in a in a sense?
19:45
Well, it certainly seems that way.
19:48
I mean, I think it's, you know, there are many causes for these
19:52
things. I mean, I certainly don't think,
19:54
you know the sort of economic setup of our society is
19:57
particularly supportive of. Of it's the dependency, isn't
20:01
it? It's, it's creating this, this
20:03
dependency on benefits which allows for the, the, the men to
20:07
take no responsibility and the women to, to, to live alone and,
20:12
and receive benefits in, in this dependent sort of cycle, which
20:17
isn't good for anyone really. And, and also you've got
20:20
fatherless, fatherless sons and, and daughters, but sons
20:24
particularly, I think you know, they, they, we, we, we've got
20:28
all these boys that have no fathers and no role models.
20:31
So that can't be very healthy for them either.
20:35
Well, I think if you, if you weaken the fundamental idea of
20:40
marriage, the fundamental institution, then then clearly
20:43
you lose a great deal of foundation and grounding in the,
20:47
in the bringing up of, of people that can be threatened in many
20:51
various ways. Certainly, you know, the, the
20:55
welfare culture can, can be part of that, but also a, a culture
20:58
which basically doesn't support families either.
21:01
A highly consumerist culture, which is constantly sort of, you
21:05
know, you know, actually a very revolutionary way, constantly
21:08
undermining in the name of prophets or whatever,
21:12
undermining all sorts of social structures that, that deed
21:16
favour the family, because the family in a sense is a, is a
21:20
world in itself. And, and there are certain
21:23
people who don't want worlds in themselves because those worlds
21:26
in themselves, as it were, are inherently pre political.
21:31
And they're actually, you know, aware, I, I, I would argue we
21:35
can discover some of our greatest freedoms.
21:38
Now, if you break that and you weaken that and you do it in the
21:41
name of freedom, in the name of choice, well, you can end up
21:45
with these expected or unexpected consequences,
21:49
depending on who's thinking about it, where you have much
21:53
weaker individuals who see themselves as consumers, as
21:57
choice makers and things like that, bereft of the frameworks.
22:00
Now that can be very damaging to men, you know who, who now
22:05
think, well, why the hell should I take a, a lifelong oath to
22:10
another human being or a woman? But also if you know, with maybe
22:15
radical feminism or something, you have women who regard these
22:22
things as, you know, outdated or sexist or whatever.
22:25
Well, then of course then, then that will change how women view
22:30
these things. I think a lot of people, men and
22:33
women are, are very frustrated by this.
22:36
They do not think that the results have been particularly
22:40
good, that the costs of this so-called increase in autonomy
22:44
have been very high. And a lot of people feel more
22:47
enslaved than ever, ironically. So you have this supposed
22:50
increase in autonomy and yet people feel more and more
22:53
enslaved. And actually, you know, sex is a
22:57
very powerful force within our lives and that can be monetised
23:02
through pornography, which is a kind of.
23:03
Ultimate forward. I'm going to get onto
23:05
pornography because I mean. That's an extreme case.
23:10
And just one thing about identity.
23:11
I mean, to me, someone might say, well, I have this sexual
23:16
identity or whatever. That's actually quite a strange
23:19
thing in a way, if you think about it.
23:20
I mean, why do you define your your core?
23:24
One of the most important things about you is, is who you are
23:27
attracted to as opposed to what kind of being you are, you know,
23:32
a male or female or something like that.
23:36
So but I, but I do think it's interesting that that one of the
23:39
strongest forms of identity people tend to identify as is
23:42
with a sexual identity. So that maybe suggests that
23:46
there's something very important here about who you are, that
23:49
this is not just, you know, what kitchens you happen to like or
23:53
what football team you, you, you, you happen to prefer.
23:56
There's something about those kinds of desires which relate to
24:00
something beyond yourself. And so in a way, I, I understand
24:04
people who want to identify in a particular way around the sexual
24:08
things. My, my question would be in what
24:11
sense does that have a, a deeper meaning?
24:13
I can understand it in terms of marriage or being a husband or
24:16
being a father or a wife or mother.
24:18
Those seem to be very fundamental kinds of roles
24:22
within life. But having a sexual predilection
24:26
for XII? Don't really see how that's a
24:28
fundamental role within life with which to identify.
24:32
And and why should that be the most important thing about it?
24:35
Doesn't seem to me obvious. Yeah.
24:37
And, and with pornography, I mean, we, you know, it seems
24:42
that we, we're men and women are affected by this because it, it,
24:47
it, it takes the ability to form, you know, meaningful
24:50
relationships away in some ways, because it's all about, it's all
24:54
about the sex and the, and the drive for sex without, you know,
24:59
I, I feel that it's, it's, it's debasing the whole fundamental
25:04
act, isn't it really Sure. And a lot of boys and, and women
25:08
are looking at, you know, it's not just men, it's women are
25:10
looking at pornography. And it's becoming addictive.
25:13
And it's becoming almost like a benchmark of how women are
25:17
treated. Would you agree?
25:20
Yeah. Yeah, and it's also it's it's
25:23
it's a dangerous fantasy. And and the danger of fantasy is
25:26
that it pretends to be real and then it starts to affect what
25:30
you think. So you, you don't, you cease to
25:32
see real men and real women of the kind you might form a
25:35
relationship with. And, but also it's, I mean,
25:39
it's, it's also completely sterile.
25:41
It's, it's, it's, it's sort of skimming pleasure of something,
25:45
in this case something unreal without.
25:49
But you're engaging your sexual emotions now.
25:51
I think those emotions actually ideally relate to another human
25:55
being who you love and nurture and cherish in a sense.
25:59
That's why they're there. But of course you can distort
26:03
them. And of course, I mean, the the
26:04
irony is that, you know, almost, you know, an awful lot of
26:07
people, ordinary people, even if they use porno, feel engaged
26:12
with it. They don't actually think it's
26:14
good. So you hear this thing where
26:15
lots of people use it. Well, lots of people lie, lots
26:18
of people do also, we all do all sorts of things that we maybe
26:20
shouldn't do, but that doesn't mean we think that that's a good
26:24
thing. So this pretence that this is a
26:26
normal good thing. And I think it's very striking
26:28
that a lot of people who complain about moral changes in
26:35
society, moral degradation, they don't want to do anything to
26:38
tackle this particular industry, which seems to me almost
26:42
entirely harmful industry which is run by people who basically
26:47
want to enslave people. I mean, I mean within the
26:50
industry itself, if we can call it an industry, are horribly
26:53
mistreated people who are often in extremely depressed States
26:57
and that sort of swept under the carpet.
26:59
So I think I think actually a serious person who wanted to
27:03
resist certain kinds of tyranny should be attacking also those
27:10
kinds of tyrannies which which are horribly enslaving and and
27:14
damaging to to society in in at large and.
27:18
When, Yeah, when you look at, when you look at pornography and
27:20
how easily it could be, it could be regulated particularly, you
27:24
know, youngsters are looking at it.
27:26
There should be some, some way of, of, of preventing children
27:30
from actually accessing pornography.
27:33
If they don't have parents that are safeguarding, then they,
27:37
they will have access to it. And what's interesting is just
27:40
only this week the government have their remedy against what
27:46
they they say is is violence towards women and girls is to
27:51
have boys of 11 years plus to have lessons in workshops at
27:56
within school to address their deep seated misogyny.
28:01
So how does this put the, you know, an 11 year old boy is then
28:05
put into a, a, a lesson or a workshop in school and told that
28:10
he's got deep seated misogyny and that he's bad and that they,
28:15
they need to learn how to respect women, Which I mean, how
28:19
do you think that will, you know, sort of influence a young
28:23
boy being told that he's bad? He may not have even thought
28:27
about misogyny, but he's being told because obviously this is
28:31
their way of addressing it. And I personally think that you
28:35
know, you, you've got all these influences like Andrew Tate,
28:39
who's who's been influencing young boys into this kind of
28:43
misogyny. Why isn't something done about
28:46
that? And pornography, rather than
28:49
giving them this poor, these poor children, some sort of
28:52
guilt trip about being bad because it's not going to work.
28:56
I mean, it's outrageous. I think it's particularly at at
28:59
very young age, people are very impressionable and often you're
29:02
putting ideas in their head that they never had.
29:05
But I mean, the hypocrisy is incredible because you have a
29:10
government that doesn't really want to do anything about say
29:13
for example, pornography or, you know, sorts of problems
29:17
associated with it. But at the same time, it's going
29:21
to try and indoctrinate 11 year olds with a, with a kind of
29:25
almost a social theory that that somehow you're inherently, you
29:29
have an inherent tendency to treating women appallingly.
29:33
Well, OK, here's an industry that treats women appallingly
29:36
and degrades everybody involved and is extremely addictive and,
29:40
and horrible. And you're doing nothing about
29:42
that. That's just, you know, ignored.
29:47
And then you're going to get into schools and you're going to
29:50
try and rewrite sort of rewire people.
29:53
And I think it's, it's very damaging generally to have this
29:56
idea that that somehow you know, you are, you are a wicked person
30:01
who needs to be re engineered. When you're talking about an 11
30:05
year old, You know, what is it that you're offering the 11 year
30:09
old? You're offering some some some
30:11
sort of condemnation of something that is hugely
30:15
turbocharged by an industry that you're not going to do anything
30:18
about. Exactly.
30:19
So what? What needs to be recovered for a
30:22
genuine, you know, a genuine moral sort of almost a renewal
30:27
in moral ethics? What in what?
30:29
How would you see that? What would that look like in
30:32
schools, for instance, or anywhere in?
30:35
Well, I think I mean, one thing that is that is always sort of
30:39
worrying in schools is, is, is there is sometimes a sort of
30:44
mistrust of parents. So there's the idea that that,
30:47
well, you can't trust parents. The school knows best, but
30:49
actually the, the child's primary education is, is within
30:54
the family. Now, of course there are
30:55
families that that are, you know, are not great, very
31:00
fragmented or bad parenting, whatever.
31:03
But the presumption should be that the the the school is, as
31:10
it were in loco parentis, but it's it's doing something on
31:13
behalf of parents, as it were, when they're at school.
31:17
Not that the school, you know, informed by a state wanting to
31:24
push out certain messages is somehow the primary care and
31:29
influence for children. And these these stupid parents
31:32
need to be sort of retrained or reorganized.
31:35
Generally speaking, parents are the look out for the best
31:40
interests of their children. Of course there are failures and
31:43
then there are people. But, but I'm talking generally
31:46
that that is the, the more suitable area whereby the child
31:50
is understood as having come from a a father and a mother
31:54
having a particular identity within a home.
31:57
So I think, well, I, I think strengthening the idea of
32:03
marriage is, is a very good place to, to start to, to say
32:07
that this is actually, you know, if you're a parent, you, you are
32:12
to some extent living for serving your own children.
32:15
And that's that's a natural instinct that many people have,
32:19
but it's often undermined or or threatened by an extremely
32:23
consumerist society, a way of thinking and talking that that
32:28
is is ultimately sort of radical or even hyper individualist.
32:32
OK. I would say that a fundamental
32:35
pre political building block is the family where and and it's
32:38
through the family that you discover the importance of
32:41
persons, the irreplaceability of persons, but also bonds your
32:45
connection to heritage and history.
32:48
Also your your responsibility for the future.
32:52
If you have a sort of hyper individualised society, which is
32:56
encouraged, I think in part by the kind of economic
33:00
arrangements that we have at current and by the idea that
33:04
basically if someone desires something, it's good regardless,
33:11
you know, unless it can be shown to prove very obvious sort of
33:15
certain kinds of harms, it's fine.
33:18
It's good if that's your sort of presumption behind everything.
33:22
It seems to me you're not going to get a particularly ethical
33:25
society because actually that's a that's a very unrealistic way
33:29
of viewing any society. The particularly.
33:32
In the West as well, because you know, there are other cultures,
33:35
other religions that do value, you know, family.
33:38
I mean, most of them actually, you look at Islam, they're very
33:41
family oriented. So, so Hindus, Judaism, they,
33:46
they all seem to have a very, very strong sense of family.
33:51
What happened to Christianity? Because it's, it seems to have
33:55
just lost its moral compass at the moment.
33:59
And how, how does that, how do we get back to that?
34:02
Because, you know, Christianity is supposed to be the Western,
34:05
you know, religion and we've gone so far away from it.
34:10
So how can that be reclaimed in some way?
34:15
Well, I think you might sort of say in what's called the West,
34:22
you have a kind of Christian heresy, which is called
34:27
liberalism. And liberalism becomes very
34:31
powerful. It's associated with some
34:35
economic production at, at at certain points as well, and
34:37
certain ideas about freedom. And these are very powerful and,
34:40
and, and in many ways very attractive ideas.
34:44
The problem is that then becomes unmoored from the Christian
34:48
culture from which it arose, and that unmooring is very dangerous
34:54
because then liberalism, as it as it were, becomes almost like
34:59
an acid. It starts dissolving the very
35:02
structures and foundations that gave rise to it.
35:05
So I think it's a particular problem in the West that we
35:07
think of things in terms of what you might say an over emphasis
35:11
on an idea about autonomy removed from the kind of moral
35:18
framework that made sense of that.
35:21
And actually, I would say almost like a a worship of man.
35:26
So you end up with this idea that man is somehow this God
35:29
like creature or if man desires something, it's good in itself.
35:34
And all I need to do is say to us.
35:35
And then you just have a few restrictions here and there for
35:38
really things that have kind of obviously problematic, but but
35:42
there's no deeper understanding of what man is for or anything
35:45
like that. How we get back to that.
35:48
Well, I think, I mean, encouraging sign is I think
35:50
people are exhausted by it. A lot of people are exhausted of
35:54
what's called liberalism because they they think, well, it does
36:00
seem to have destroyed, for instance, to some extent, the
36:04
institution of marriage. It doesn't actually seem to be
36:07
bringing home the the kind of economic results and prosperity
36:11
is that perhaps once it did and more and more people are
36:14
reacting against it. Now.
36:17
People can react against liberalism in all sorts of ways.
36:19
Some of them can be very dangerous, you know, if not
36:22
worse, you know, sort of the extreme collectivism, for
36:26
example, or a vicious reaction. But in fact, true liberty, I
36:31
think, has to be grounded in sort of return to certain kind
36:37
of ethical understandings of our role.
36:39
And at a very basic level, that starts within the idea of the
36:43
family. I would say so.
36:45
So being a man is understood for many people, obviously not for
36:49
everybody, but in terms of what it means to be a father, what it
36:54
means to have a lifelong institution that treats every
36:57
new human being as somehow irreplaceable, not just a
37:01
consumer choice. A move away from a sort of view
37:05
of seeing everything is transactional, everything is
37:08
replaceable. Now traditionally religion
37:12
strengthen that role. Many people are are not
37:15
religious, but I think that the truths about the family can be
37:19
understood by someone who even without a religious faith just
37:25
as easily and and many, many people are coming through to
37:27
that. So I think, I think in a way,
37:31
the exhaustion of of our society and the creeping sort of
37:36
totalitarianism that comes with it.
37:38
If you have an ultra high, you know, ultra individualist
37:41
society, what you find pretty soon is, you know, the
37:45
government actually in those circumstances can push through a
37:49
lot more repressive measures than they could when there were
37:55
stronger communities and stronger families.
37:57
So I, I think, you know, focusing on your community, on
37:59
your family is, is one way in which you can start to resist
38:07
some of. I mean, it is, it is interesting
38:09
because I actually just to endorse what you've said, just
38:13
just lately I've been talking to a lot of younger people.
38:16
I mean, I'm talking people late teens, early to mid 20s and they
38:21
are almost rebelling against this, this whole, I suppose,
38:26
destruction of, of, of, you know, the, the, the, the, the
38:31
moral fibre of, of, of our society.
38:35
And, and that, you know, that, that has all of that has been
38:38
quite celebrated, I think with, you know, women's liberation
38:41
and, and the destruction of the family unit.
38:44
And they're, they're saying, well, we want to get married
38:46
early and have, have children. And, and there, there's, there
38:50
is a bit of a turn around. Do you think that because it's
38:53
it's been pushed so far and this exhaustion that you're Speaking
38:57
of has actually pushed people to actually you wake up and see
39:00
what's really going on? Yes, I do.
39:03
I mean, I, I think, I mean it's partly because people get that
39:08
it's just not plausible to carry on like this as it were.
39:12
Whereas maybe it was, you know, in the 60s, there was a very
39:15
different atmosphere where it things seemed possible and there
39:18
were these utopian visions and this would somehow lead to.
39:21
But the results are in, you know, the statistics have been a
39:25
disaster. And actually very many social
39:27
changes, they say this will be fine, This will lead to great
39:30
liberation. People at the time said, well,
39:32
actually what it will lead to is the kind of things we see now.
39:35
And that's exactly what's happened.
39:38
I mean, reality as it were will not be mocked.
39:42
So, you know, you can live in this fantasy world, but it's now
39:46
it's very obviously a fantasy that if you have mass sexual
39:50
liberalisation, you have a utopia.
39:52
You know, there are the costs all around us.
39:55
And a lot of people, I mean, you hear this sort of people talk
39:57
about boomers. There's a kind of resentment, I
39:59
think amongst young people that a particular generation or
40:03
elements of a particular generation bequeathed them a
40:07
huge amount more insecurity because all of these things have
40:10
other effects, including economic effects.
40:12
So, so OK, great, we've had sexual liberation and now you
40:15
can't buy a house, you know, great.
40:18
You know you have all these things that you expected that
40:21
you might have. And instead of which they've
40:23
been sold down a river. And actually, I, I think there's
40:25
a story to be told about the, the, what you might call the
40:29
left or has shifted from economic concerns, which many of
40:35
which I think had some legitimacy to, as it were sexual
40:39
liberation. So you, you end up with a, a
40:42
sort of split within the left where it's sort of lifestyle
40:45
liberalism, which is extremely socially costly and economically
40:50
costly and destructive and traditional concerns to do with
40:55
the economy are, are put to one side.
40:58
So ignore all that. And then you have a sort of, you
41:00
know, you have an extremely ugly culture where there is no really
41:06
serious critique. But what I think a problem with,
41:09
with some people on on the left is that they have, as it were,
41:15
adopted a sort of extreme lifestyle liberalism kind of
41:19
view and, and undermine the family and things like that.
41:24
And at the same time they complain about the economic
41:28
decision. Well, these things are linked,
41:30
you know, if you, if you have stronger families, if you have
41:33
an understanding within Society of paying people so that they
41:37
can bring up a family of allowing housing not to be sort
41:41
of insane. And a lot of these problems have
41:43
come about precisely because traditional structures have been
41:46
destroyed. So it's it's a terrible mess,
41:50
but I think as you say, people are waking up both to the
41:54
economic disaster, but also to the fact that maybe, just maybe
41:59
jettisoning some traditional moral ideas of jettisoned
42:03
Christianity and things like that actually leads to much
42:09
worse results all round. Yeah.
42:12
I mean, do you, do you feel that maybe religious education should
42:16
be really quite focused on in, in, in education?
42:20
Because I mean, just recently Northern Ireland, the, the
42:25
Supreme Court ruled that RE was actually not going to be, they
42:31
said it was illegal to actually teach RE in, in Northern
42:36
Northern Irish schools. So that is a massive turn around
42:41
in. And you know, this, this is
42:43
something that we're facing at the moment where it's almost
42:45
being, you know, Christianity is being cancelled.
42:48
Do you see a lot of that at the moment?
42:50
Well. I mean, certainly I think what
42:53
you have, you have a a kind of state religion which is
42:57
promoted. So I mean, one of one of the
42:59
sort of deceptions of liberalism is it always claims that it is
43:03
somehow neutral, neutral about the meaning of life or the
43:09
neutral on these questions. But then obviously any school
43:13
curriculum, particularly in a state school, will actually be
43:17
focused on certain kinds of questions and certain it will
43:20
emphasise certain kinds of values.
43:23
So what you have broadly you have had, we've seen, you know,
43:26
people talk about the woke stuff or whatever.
43:29
You see a very partial and biased emphasis in some personal
43:36
social education used to be called when I was at school on
43:39
certain kinds of lifestyles and certain kinds of things are
43:42
wrong and and right. And those can be very much in
43:46
conflict with some traditional religious ideas.
43:49
So religion is then seen as a rival to this, as it were, you
43:54
might say state promoted ideology.
43:56
And any state in fact in the end will not be very tolerant of,
44:04
despite what it might say, will not be very tolerant of views
44:07
which fundamentally question, say, things like marriage or the
44:12
upbringing of children. So I think there's inevitably
44:16
going to be friction and conflict, but I think the thing
44:20
to remember is, is, is a particular ideology which
44:23
functions almost like a religion.
44:25
It has its own, you know, heresies and punishments and,
44:29
and ways of enforcing things that that is going to be jealous
44:35
of traditional religions, particularly when traditional
44:38
religions actually question some pretty big fundamental ethical
44:44
questions as opposed to sort of some sort of milk toast, you
44:49
know, kumbaya, generic, generic messages, which ineffensive to
44:54
anybody because religion actually, you know, is a very
44:58
important thing in people's lives, but it's also
45:01
historically important. So I think, yeah, it's it's I, I
45:07
think, I think being aware that certain things that are pushed
45:11
are necessarily intolerant. So for instance, and, and sex is
45:15
actually a very good example, a, a, a traditional view of sexual
45:22
morality is deemed as extremely offensive or bigoted or phobic
45:26
or all these sorts of things. Well, those, those are actually
45:30
the, the deep seated beliefs of religions over thousands and
45:34
thousands of years across the world throughout history.
45:39
And we have a very small minority, very recent view
45:42
within world history which is radically opposed to all of
45:46
that. And that is taught as though
45:49
that is absolute common sense. And all of this religion stuff
45:53
is false. So it doesn't surprise me that
45:58
such repressive messages come in.
45:59
Of course, it's not very good for the self-image of a country
46:03
which claims that it's liberal because it says, well, we're
46:05
neutral. But I think that neutrality is
46:08
is really ultimately A sham. You know, you can't just park
46:12
fundamental questions. What you can do is have really
46:15
serious discussions of them, but that of course is not the, if,
46:21
if you look at all the name calling that that surrounds
46:24
these kinds of debates, that is clearly not the interests of of
46:27
many of the elite in this country and, and, and I presume
46:32
Northern Ireland. Yeah, Well, that's, that's,
46:35
that's, that's, that's interesting.
46:37
Now, abortion and assisted suicide, I know we, we touched
46:41
on it earlier. Are we witnessing A fundamental
46:44
shift in how society values human life?
46:46
I mean, we're having this massive debate at the moment
46:49
going on in the House of House of Lords about assisted dying.
46:53
And the Lords are doing a sterling job at defending the
46:56
value of human life. And of course it's, it's now
47:00
going into next year and it's, it's, it's ping ponging around
47:03
this whole committee stage. I mean, do you think that it's,
47:08
it's almost like, I mean, when, when I was listening to it last
47:11
week and they had an issue, they were, they were looking at
47:16
assisted dying for prisoners, people who are homeless and also
47:23
pregnant women. And you know, that this whole
47:26
issue came up about do you encourage a woman to who is
47:31
pregnant to have, you know, to take assisted dying?
47:34
That decision. And it was defended very heavily
47:37
by Lord McKinley, Who, who, who, who just, you know, he, he
47:43
really said, you know, we need to value the life as a fetus
47:46
because it's, it's fetus side, basically.
47:49
And, you know, I couldn't believe Lord Falconer absolutely
47:53
said, you know, it, it it's a state accompli.
47:56
If she's pregnant, then, you know, the fetus dies as well.
47:59
Unbelievable. What what?
48:01
What's your view on that? Well, I think it's a very good
48:05
illustration of a kind of fanatical position.
48:09
And the fanatical position is there's this thing called
48:11
autonomy. And that, as it were, is where
48:15
we put all the value on autonomy that that and we don't actually
48:20
address the actual choices. So you people talk about I've
48:23
got a right to choose. I've got a right to choose.
48:25
Well, a right to choose what? I mean, fairly obviously, what
48:31
matters is what you are choosing.
48:32
That's what needs to be examined.
48:34
What does that involve? OK, not just this sort of
48:37
abstract universal right that actually doesn't go into a
48:44
description of what's being chosen.
48:46
So you see this with the abortion debate.
48:47
Well, I've got a right to choose and then sometimes we'll choose
48:49
what? And then you need to talk about,
48:51
well, what is an abortion? What is the status of an unborn
48:56
child or fetus, an embryo? What what metaphysical status
49:01
does that have? And what what does that mean
49:03
morally? Those are very big questions
49:05
which need to be debated, but they don't they get completely
49:08
ignored. If someone just says I've got a
49:09
right to choose and you're anti choice.
49:12
Well, what's the choice? You know, that's not what you
49:14
say about almost anything else. OK, and just look at look at the
49:18
laws we have. But what we've seen in the LED
49:22
bitty debate is, again, I have a right to choose.
49:26
OK. And then people say, well, let's
49:27
examine what that means. What does it mean about
49:31
traditional ideas about the taking of an innocent life?
49:37
OK, including your own. What does it actually mean to to
49:40
say that? So we have immense dishonesty
49:43
from Leadbeater. She gets very, very angry if you
49:45
say suicide. Oh, it's not suicide.
49:50
Well, it's, it's willing your own death and, and getting the
49:54
equipment to carry it out. And in fact the legislation has
49:59
to change the current suicide Act, which makes it blindingly
50:04
obvious that it is about suicide.
50:08
It the reason is that suicide still has an emotional charge
50:11
for lots of people. They think suicide is something
50:14
bad, something to be avoided, something you try and prevent
50:17
people from carrying out. So I mean, the Faulkner response
50:23
was was interesting because in a sense it shows that there's this
50:26
fanaticism of this so-called right to choose.
50:30
And no matter what you plug in at the end, like, well, what if
50:33
the woman's pregnant and it looks as though you're you're
50:35
she's in choosing that she's taking another life as well.
50:41
And he's got really nothing to say to that.
50:45
This shows the fanaticism that in fact there's a driving force
50:50
that that this must be legislated and we must ignore
50:54
all amendments, all questions, all of the evidence that the
50:57
royal colleges are not in favour of it.
50:59
You know, the disability groups are not in favour of it because
51:02
the people who are opposing it generally, we'll see how it will
51:07
affect all sorts of vulnerable groups.
51:09
Okay, this as this religion of autonomy will actually have
51:13
enormous numbers of victims of people who don't actually have
51:17
much autonomy but will feel social pressure and will
51:21
pressure themselves to end their lives.
51:24
So I I think that's why we get these kind of grotesques.
51:27
Yes, yeah, absolutely. Now what Also I I was, I was
51:31
thinking, you know, because they were they were talking about,
51:33
you know, people with with severe depression.
51:35
And of course if if if someone is is for instance, if this this
51:41
bill at the moment is for people with six months to live or less.
51:46
And you wonder if, if a homeless person, for instance, is, is
51:50
homeless, they've had a diagnosis of whatever and
51:53
they've been given six months to live, you know, would their view
51:57
change if they were said? If, if someone said to them,
52:00
listen, let's put you up in a, in a wonderful facility, give
52:04
you palliative care and see how it goes.
52:07
You know, sure. Rather than agree, you know,
52:10
getting them to agree to, to, to suicide themselves, basically,
52:16
you know, this, this, this is the same, this is the same for,
52:19
for prisoners and, and for, for pregnant women because
52:22
palliative care is being decreased.
52:25
And I think it's a choice because people aren't getting
52:28
the palliative care they need and the pain relief or whatever.
52:32
And it's, it's almost like a choice because do I go through
52:35
all that pain in an uncomfortable situation like
52:38
being homeless or a prisoner or, or a, a woman who's who's
52:42
feeling insecure? Or do I just end it all because
52:46
it's all too awful to face? Sure.
52:48
So that's what I'm seeing to be honest, is.
52:51
There's not. Enough about, you know, looking
52:54
after people who have six months to live.
52:56
Yeah. Well, it's the very opposite of
52:58
actually what medicine is about. Medicine is about healing.
53:02
And, and interestingly, actually the Hippocratic Oath, which is
53:04
a, a pre Christian oath by several 100 years.
53:09
It specifically rules out euthanasia.
53:12
It specifically rules out that as paradigmatically anti
53:16
medicinal, it's anti healing. So the presumption and, and
53:20
indeed it was in the NH s s founding documents that you
53:24
know, you're there to, to help and assist and preserve life.
53:27
That's a massive assumption, a societal assumption that will be
53:31
removed here, OK. And if you remove that
53:35
presumption, everybody becomes much more vulnerable, OK, in in
53:41
very obvious ways. For example, you said if people
53:43
are depressed and feeling vulnerable, things like that.
53:46
Well, unfortunately, the given human nature, there are very
53:51
many people, maybe all of us at some point who, you know, find
53:56
other people very burdensome. And it may be that we send out a
54:00
message knowingly or not that actually they are pretty
54:04
burdensome and they would be better off being dead and other
54:07
people would be better off if they were dead.
54:10
OK, So that's that's thought then seeps into people,
54:13
particularly people who are depressed, particularly people
54:15
who who feel undervalued. And the, I mean, the idea is
54:19
basically that the message goes out.
54:22
There are certain lives that are unworthy of life, to use a, to
54:26
use a phrase used in the 30s, there are certain lives that are
54:29
unworthy of life. OK.
54:33
And if you happen to think that your life is unworthy of life,
54:36
we will support you in that. The state will say this is a
54:39
good thing and we will bestow death on you at your own hand,
54:44
but we'll give you the means. That's an extraordinarily
54:47
dangerous change. And actually, I mean dangerous
54:50
territory. It's very, I mean, it should be
54:52
stressed. There are people who many people
54:55
who are not against, who don't have an inherent objection to
54:59
suicide, but who see this law as extraordinarily dangerous.
55:05
It certainly is. I mean, I'm.
55:06
Even even talking to farmers, you know, farmers with the
55:08
inheritance tax, if you're an elderly farmer and you've been a
55:13
lot of the farmers, you know, I've been talking to them quite,
55:17
you know, quite in depth. And there's some of them who,
55:21
you know, might be in their 80s or whatever.
55:23
They don't they, they, they, they know that if they, if they
55:27
don't live past April, then their, their farms are going to
55:31
be gone for their families. And they're even turning down
55:34
cancer treatments in order that, you know, they died before
55:38
April, which is just an. Awful.
55:40
Thing for people to face and it just shows you exactly what
55:44
Starmer's government is is actually creating here.
55:48
Well, I think, I think, I mean, it's very striking that Starmer,
55:52
there was a leak in the Guardian newspaper which was of a memo
55:59
which shows quite clearly that Starmer has been backing this
56:03
bill behind the scenes. And it was very deliberately
56:05
brought in as a private members bill so as to escape certain
56:08
checks and balances. And I think it's actually quite
56:10
a fitting with regard to Starmer that it seems to me the one bit
56:14
of legislation he hasn't done, the legislation he's promised in
56:18
all sorts of areas, but the one bit he really is committed to
56:22
is, is something to help people to end their lives.
56:26
It sort of seems, it seems to sort of be be reflective of, of
56:31
an attitude to people as, yeah, people who, who you don't value
56:37
the inherent value of their lives at all.
56:41
Rather you make life very hard for all sorts of people.
56:45
And then you say, Oh, well, you know, that could be a valid
56:49
reason for an assisted suicide. I want to involve the inherent
56:51
attacks. I mean, I mean, you have a bill
56:52
that doesn't at present, doesn't really have any safeguard
56:57
against that. And in fact, this kind of
56:59
legislation, I think you you can have no real safeguards.
57:03
We've seen in every other legislature where legislators
57:07
come in that it very quickly expands to cover the huge amount
57:11
of other cases because there's nothing inherent, you know, for,
57:15
for example, six months to live. Well, I'm, you know, first of
57:19
all, predicting life, the length of life is, is notoriously
57:26
difficult, but it makes no reference to pain.
57:31
So someone might say, well, what if I'm in great deal of pain and
57:34
but I haven't got six months to live?
57:35
Aren't I being discriminated against?
57:36
Why don't you give it to me? OK, so it's all, all, all of
57:40
these things become very arbitrary and there's a slippery
57:42
slope problem that if you can't give a justification for
57:46
something further down the line. So there's nothing in the
57:50
legislation that doesn't protect against a similar rationale
57:53
being given for something that goes beyond the law.
57:55
So it's it's it's really terrifying.
57:59
And I mean, the good news is that that a lot of people,
58:03
religious and non religious, left and right, people from all
58:06
sorts of different backgrounds are opposing this very strongly.
58:10
Yes, yeah. And including the war colleges.
58:12
Yeah, yeah, I feel that. Yeah, I think what it does is it
58:16
exposes the fanaticism of those pushing it because in a sense
58:19
they have. And actually going back to the
58:21
sexual revolution, you know, we were told abortion, for example,
58:26
Oh well, it will just be a few very difficult cases.
58:28
Just a few small, small, very difficult cases.
58:32
They they change things, don't they, to make it.
58:34
Very quickly, I mean, we could be facing 300,000 abortions.
58:39
I think the next figures, you know well.
58:43
And people warned at the time that this would happen and they
58:46
were told they were nutters, they were naysayers,
58:50
scaremongering. And this has happened again and
58:52
again and again with with these radical social changes.
58:55
There are people who warn about the dangers and they're they're
59:00
dismissed as cranks or lunatics or whatever.
59:03
And then 3040 is right, exactly that's happened and society has
59:07
become coarsened and changed. And people say, well, that was a
59:10
long time ago, move on, you know?
59:12
And it is concerning that this, this could all lead to the, the
59:16
Canadian model that's that that we're seeing unfolding in Canada
59:19
with the NAGE system, the medically assisted dying and,
59:23
and how, you know, vulnerable people are being encouraged to,
59:27
to take their own lives, you know, people with mental health
59:30
issues and, and just even just general depression.
59:34
And it's really concerning. It's almost as though our
59:37
government are really pushing this through to accelerate it to
59:41
that level. Do you would you agree?
59:43
I'm I'm just. Worried that that's where it.
59:45
Looks as though it might be going I.
59:47
Mean, I think what 1 can certainly say.
59:49
Of course there are there are hidden motives.
59:51
I mean, Matthew Paris, you know, sort of very much an
59:54
establishment journalist, you know, openly came out and said,
59:57
well, this will save loads of money and it's a good thing.
1:00:01
And of course he he was sort of people told him to be quiet, but
1:00:04
I think he said the quiet bit out loud.
1:00:07
I think. I think some people are just so
1:00:09
obsessed by this autonomy idea that this idea that this is some
1:00:13
sort of great new expression of autonomy.
1:00:17
That they just couldn't care less about the consequences.
1:00:20
It's become that, that that's what's worrying is it's become
1:00:23
almost a, a, a, a quaso of religious obsession such that
1:00:27
any evidence is irrelevant because this is such a great
1:00:30
good. And it's because basically what
1:00:32
I'm saying is some people want to do this and therefore that's
1:00:35
it. And, and hang the consequences.
1:00:38
And actually I noticed John Grey, who's quite an interesting
1:00:42
philosopher, who is certainly pro, pro-choice at the beginning
1:00:47
of life with abortion and in principle pro euthanasia or or
1:00:53
at least assisted suicide. He he came out the other day and
1:00:57
just said this will mean death panels.
1:01:02
This will mean horrific people making decisions ultimately over
1:01:06
whether your life has any value or agreeing or pushing your own
1:01:11
assessment of yourself. And he doesn't like it at all.
1:01:15
So. So it's not, it's not, it's not
1:01:17
only people who have a principled objection or some
1:01:19
idea about the safety of life. It's people who have no in
1:01:23
principled objection. But they they see exactly where
1:01:25
this will lead to, where it's going.
1:01:28
And I think, yeah, this, this obsession with it goes back to
1:01:31
this idea that you can create yourself in any way and that all
1:01:35
of your choices should be affirmed regardless of what they
1:01:40
actually do, what they bring about.
1:01:43
Gosh, we've covered so much and and you know, this has been a
1:01:46
fascinating conversation and I could talk to you forever, but
1:01:50
I'm not sure how long we've been.
1:01:52
It must be an hour. I've haven't looked at the watch
1:01:54
actually. But oh gosh, yes, we've been,
1:01:56
we've just been over an hour. So where can we find your book?
1:02:02
Your your ethical sex? So I think it's still on Amazon,
1:02:06
so it's Amazon.co.uk. Otherwise people can write to me
1:02:12
if they would like. My e-mail is a McCarthy all one
1:02:17
word lower case at what? Is it a mccarthy@bioscentre.org
1:02:27
OR? G Right.
1:02:27
I'll put this all in the in the. In the notes.
1:02:31
Yeah. The details, yeah.
1:02:34
So so no. If they want to find out more
1:02:36
than I'm very happy. And do you?
1:02:37
Are you on social media at all? Not really, no, no, I look at
1:02:42
it, but I don't, I yeah, keep a low profile that way.
1:02:46
Absolutely, yeah. Okay, well, do you know I, I
1:02:50
could talk to you forever? I mean, is there anything else
1:02:52
that you'd like to say to, to, to finish up?
1:02:56
Because, you know, we've covered a lot of detail, which I think
1:02:59
it's probably a good time to, to stop because there's so much
1:03:03
information here that I think people will probably watch this
1:03:06
over and over again. I know I will because you've,
1:03:10
you've really answered almost well, just about every question
1:03:13
I had, which is, you know, was quite a lot of questions.
1:03:17
So it's been a really, really interesting and yeah, eye
1:03:22
opening interview. So is there anything else you'd
1:03:26
like to sort of say to round up? Is there?
1:03:28
Anything you'd like? I mean, just to thank to thank
1:03:31
you actually very much and and the work you do, but also, you
1:03:36
know that I think the debate on many matters is very
1:03:40
restrictive. And I think just getting out to
1:03:43
people and you're saying you're talking to farmers, but just
1:03:45
talking to people who are actually affected by these
1:03:48
changes is extremely important. And I feel as though one of the
1:03:52
reasons that that certain kinds of legislation can get through
1:03:55
or be pushed is precisely because many, many people's
1:04:01
voices are ignored in the euthanasia debate.
1:04:05
That was true for a very for a very long time.
1:04:07
It's got a little bit better, but but the victims of many
1:04:10
things are ignored. So we have victim culture, but
1:04:14
it's only very selected, specified victims who get, get a
1:04:19
voice. I think getting those voices out
1:04:22
is, is, is really important work, particularly now more than
1:04:25
ever. And that's true across a range
1:04:27
of, of subjects because in a way you don't really see the effects
1:04:32
of legislation unless you listen and speak to people who have the
1:04:36
relevant experience of, of the effect.
1:04:40
So I think that's that's very valuable work, you know.
1:04:44
Would you encourage people to, I mean, do they write to their
1:04:47
MPs? How, how can people almost get a
1:04:51
counterculture going on on all of this sort of devaluing of, of
1:04:56
human life? How can we?
1:04:59
How do do we write to? Our MPs, I certainly write to M
1:05:06
PS I mean, it is still worth doing just because the, the, the
1:05:09
sheer numbers may may cause a bit of a shift.
1:05:12
And we've seen a little bit with the, with the Leadbeater bill.
1:05:15
Actually, I, I think you know, but also, I suppose making
1:05:19
people aware that this is a very significant voice.
1:05:23
And that means, you know, in your conversations with people,
1:05:27
not just letting everyone assume that we all agree on this
1:05:30
because perhaps we don't. And the more you speak up, the
1:05:34
more other people will have the courage to to speak up.
1:05:37
And I think the other thing is, you know, depending on where you
1:05:42
are, I mean, if you're in the Academy or, or something like
1:05:47
that, you know, write papers, you know, I mean, you, you need
1:05:51
to try and as it were, change the culture at many, many
1:05:54
different levels. That includes at the elite
1:05:56
level, as it were, but it also includes very importantly sort
1:06:00
of more on on the ground and just speaking in your local
1:06:04
communities, organising, speaking up and also not.
1:06:10
I think a lot of people end up alienating each other on on
1:06:14
separate issues, but but trying to remind ourselves that, you
1:06:18
know, whether people are left or right or atheist or religious or
1:06:21
whatever, there's actually a huge amount of of sort of moral
1:06:26
common sense for what a better word that people do agree.
1:06:30
On and you can lose. Yeah, exactly.
1:06:32
And that actually unifies you. And once you're unified, you can
1:06:34
speak. So not to sort of, you know,
1:06:37
you're always going to disagree with people.
1:06:38
We all disagree with each other about all sorts of things.
1:06:41
But there are very, very big questions.
1:06:43
And what I'd say is if you think carefully about some of those
1:06:45
big questions, like like we were at the beginning of marriage,
1:06:50
that gives you some, some explanation of what's happening
1:06:54
in the society. So it's not just a, the range of
1:06:58
disconnected things that annoy you.
1:07:00
You begin to have some kind of explanatory theory.
1:07:04
And having that means you can tell a story, you have a, you
1:07:08
have a story to tell. And it's, it's having a, a real
1:07:12
story to tell that has serious content and, you know,
1:07:17
historical backing as well that I think convinces people.
1:07:21
Yeah, you've you've you've really get certainly given me
1:07:24
food for thought about maybe writing a bit more about this
1:07:27
and and putting the word out because it's it is it's a
1:07:30
fundamental thing about valuing our very life force.
1:07:36
Everything about, you know, what, what, what it means to be
1:07:39
human, what it means to be alive, and, you know, valuing,
1:07:43
giving that a value rather than devaluing it, which is what,
1:07:47
which is what's happened over over the last few decades,
1:07:51
actually. And, you know, I, I just want to
1:07:53
thank you so much for this interview.
1:07:55
It's so important. And I can't tell you how
1:07:59
wonderful it is. And Auntie McCarthy, thanks so
1:08:02
much for coming on. And we'll get this out as soon
1:08:05
as possible. And thanks very much for joining
1:08:08
me today. Thank you very much, Sandy.
1:08:11
Thank you.