David Shaw's criticism of Calum MacKellar, director of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics (Letters, 9 and 12 May) is unfair. Dr Shaw suggests that, despite its explicit claim to the contrary, The SCHB is a religious organisation. However, his argument is weak.
Dr Shaw is perpetuating the fashionable fallacy that there is a neat fit between people's religious beliefs and their views on ethics and bioethics. He suggests in particular that, whereas non-religious people tend to be utilitarians with regard to m
orals and legislation, religious people tend, because of their religious views, to be non-utilitarians. This is false.
Often, whatever their beliefs with regard to religion, people are offended by actions that produce no obvious harm and want such actions to be or to remain crimes. Consider, for instance, sex with dead bodies and with animals. No obvious harm ensues from such actions yet many non-religious people are offended by them and would not approve of their legalisation. To cavort naked in public causes no obvious harm yet there is no concerted attempt by non-religious people to legalise such behaviour.
Some people who are religiously minded hold views which are quite different from those advocated by the SCHB. Some people who agree with some or all of the views of the SCHB are not religiously minded.
(PROF) HUGH McLACHLAN
School of Law and Social Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University
GlasgowThe full article contains 236 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
