”We must be able to demand that people take responsibility for their standpoints.” Indeed. Especially when the people in question are powerful, when they pass judgement before consulting reason and when their words endanger security and fundamental humanist values.
The man who made the seemingly self-evident statement above is hedonistic-utilitarian ethicist Torbjörn Tännsjö. As an outspoken advocate of euthanasia as well as of the one-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict whereby “the Likud and Hamas parties would compete on equal conditions”, he expresses controversial views. As a professor of practical philosophy at Stockholm University and a member of the medical ethics committee of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, he belongs to an influential elite.
The scope of this text is limited to two subject matters on which Tännsjö has pronounced himself in public. Although the issues seem incomparable – selective abortion and Jews – there is a striking similarity in approach to human rights and civil liberties.
In an Aftonbladet interview, the professor argues for the selective abortion of foetuses with dyslexia, colour blindness and other “weaknesses”. When asked if he sees any peril in discarding “weak” individuals, he answers that “[i]t is not dangerous to discard diseases, to the contrary it could lead to a better society.” On a normative note, he claims that we “should strive for the levelling of emotional and intellectual abilities. Then society will become more equal.”
A more recent text, on the Gaza convoy, published in English on Newsmill, a site linked to by the major daily Dagens Nyheter, is addressed to Jews everywhere. “When violent crimes are committed by fundamentalist Muslim groups Muslims all over the world are rightfully called to come forward to condemn the crimes”, Tännsjö asserts and continues: “Now the time has come for Jews, individuals and organisations, to do the same, in order to obviate anti-Semitism. It is crucial that those who conceive of themselves as belonging to some kind of Jewish community [...] denounce in the strongest terms the violent murders of many peace activists on the ships. The reason for this is of course that Israel defines itself as a Jewish state. The best way to contribute to this very reasonable cause is to take part in the rallies held all over the globe in protest.”
To conclude, the philosopher expresses a mild threat: “If Jews hesitate to do so, the distinction, which is clear and sharp in theory, between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, may easily drop into oblivion.”
On Swedish Radio, Tännsjö clarifies his demands on the Jews. It is obvious that he does not recognize the existence of an ethnic Jewish identity. He calls for every Jew to declare that she or he does not support murder in the name of Judaism. This is the context within which the quote at the top of this article belongs.
In both cases, the professor expresses a hygienic outlook on human society. The rights to life and security have to be earned through the display of certain ideological, physical or mental features. There are no inalienable universal rights. The value of the human person is relative. Strength and weakness are defined very narrowly.
When Tännsjö refers to groups of people as ”diseases” and ”disabilities” these individuals – whether living or yet to be born – are dehumanised. A person who is a writer, a father, a good friend, a dyslectic and much more is thus reduced to a ”weakness” which should be erased for the sake of “equality”, which in Tännsjö’s discourse is a synonym for “similarity”. The same line of reasoning could be used in favour of the abortion of foetuses ”diagnosed” as or “risking” to become homosexuals, brown-eyed or girls. Actually, in the case of girls, the philosopher in question has already argued for the “family hygiene” advantages of gender selective abortion.
In the text on Jews there are two serious intellectual mistakes. First, Tännsjö grants scholarly legitimacy to the world-wide explosion of anti-Israel rage unparallelled by reactions to any recent non-Israeli military intervention with as many or more civlian or militant casualties – in Afghanistan or elsewhere. One should be able to expect a trained researcher to take into account the complexity of a given situation and at least glance at empirical data before drawing conclusions. Instead, in mockery of academic integrity, the professor demands others to blindly accept his extrajudicial murder conviction. His use of the word “reasonable” is in this context an insult to reason. Tännsjö is in effect calling upon each individual Jew to join the choir of those who judge Israel by a standard that is applied to no other country, a standard which can hardly be identified as anything other than a tool for political anti-Semitism.
Furthermore, according to the logic on collective Jewish responsibility, one might as well demand that every Jew and Muslim who shares Tännsjö’s Swedish identity condemn his ideas. I, who consider myself culturally Catholic, should not hesitate to agree with every anti-Vatican opinion, whether based on facts or not. Otherwise, I have to accept being persecuted like the Jews in Mayor Ilmar Reepalu’s Malmö.
One distinction should, however, be made in this context, namely the one between chosen and inherited identities. No one can choose to be born as an ethnic Jew, Kurd, Bantu or Arab. Nor can anyone choose to be born colour blind, dyslectic or female. Verbally or physically attacking human beings because of their ethnicity, nationality or physical and mental features is pure racism. Meanwhile, placing conditions on the civil rights and liberties of socialists, Jews, Muslims or Catholics, is comparable to racism.
The right of anyone, insider or outsider, to demand that representatives of political, religious or philosophical ideologies or institutions declare and explain their views is another matter entirely.