Uneasy Ethics (A Pimlico original) [Paperback]

Perhaps the use of the archaic term Siamese, rather than Co-joined, twins should have been a warning of a rather traditional approach to religious morality, as opposed to a modern discourse on ethical reasoning. I was unaware of the input of religious leaders into the case of the co-joined twins called Jodie and Mary, so this information was new. In a country where so many and diverse religions are practiced, and many have no faith at all, this makes an uneasy president. It is to be understood that the legal system of England and Wales is embedded within a Judaic-Christian framework, but to suggest that religious leaders should influence judges in their interpretation of the Law as laid down by a secular Parliament is disturbing. We should be grateful to Professor Lee for pointing this out to us. When it comes to weighing the different merits of the arguments for leaving both these children to die, or saving only one, it is not possible to be so supportive. It is assumed that one life is not more valuable than the other, with the conclusion that both co-joined twins should die, but no case other than religious president is proffered. Had I given birth to such children, and probably gone thorough a difficult delivery, not to wish for one to survive, even if that meant losing the other, would be unthinkable: would not such a child be that much more special, being a living memorial to the one lost. No, this is not moral reasoning, but it is not dissimilar to the reasoning that suggests one should follow only the precepts of church fathers, without the concomitant reasoning. There are many comments made in this volume in the first person, so the reviewer feels justified in this use of language. It would have been interesting to find a rebuttal of Carol Gilligan’s ethical approach as a counterbalance to the religious view.

The other chapters in this book, Child-Killers: Uneasy Mercy; Northern Ireland: Uneasy Peace; Ethics in a Spin: A Byers’ Market?; and Countering Terrorism: Uneasy Evil in an Uneasy World, each revisit the first, but not always in transparent ways. It is difficult to know which schools of philosophy influence each case, especially since they have been chosen as muddy areas, and there are few references given in the bibliography (I would also have benefited from knowing which newspapers’ accounts where used to give the background for each case, where other sources are not given).

Child-Killers: Uneasy Mercy, has a focus of the James Bulger case, but also mentions Myra Hindley. Since this text has a current affairs focus I was hoping for comment on the average of three child deaths a week at the hands of their parents, and the current legal problems in getting a conviction when each parent covers for the other. Perhaps the domestic feel to such cases is too disturbing for such treatment? Perhaps this is unfair comment, given the focus on mercy in this chapter, but parents who kill their own children, and are themselves adults, appear to be shown more mercy than ten year old boys, whom arguably knew far less about the moral calculus of their actions, however horrible.

Northern Ireland: Uneasy Peace; Ethics in a Spin: A Byers’ Market?; and Countering Terrorism: Uneasy Evil in an Uneasy World, were less easy to follow. Parables also crept in from the New Testament (but without chapter and verse). Christian readers are likely to know them, and their interpretations, but Non-Christians may need their relevance made more explicit, or might miss the point. Where there is a strong case to be made, this seems a shame.

In summary, this book really seems targeted at a scholarly Christian, and especially a scholarly Roman Catholic audience, rather than a more philosophically inclined group. This was brought home for me in the Conclusion: “Many readers will know that Newman’s lectures in Dublin on the idea of a university in 1852 are still of interest today.” (p211). Indeed.