What Happened to My Beloved Oxford?


My junior year of college I took a year off from my chemistry studies and went on an adventure.  I spent a year studying English literature, philosophy and Latin at Blackfriars College, a part of University of Oxford.  Academically, I got my butt handed to me.  Once, after spending days poring over a philosophy text and writing the best 12-page paper I could, my philosophy professor, called a tutor, asked me if I had gotten drunk and then stayed up all night writing that paper.  In a word, he thought it was “terrible.”  Before Oxford, I was a straight “A” chemistry major.

Despite my academic setbacks, Oxford was a fantastic experience.  I had no money so I got a job at the famous Turf Tavern and poured more pints of Old Speckled Hen, Headbanger and Dogs Bollocks than one person should.  I also loved English television.  Their adverts (commercials) were better then some of our best shows, so much so that I would consider getting a satellite dish if BBC America started playing British adverts instead of mind-numbing American commercials.  I spent the year gorging myself on cheese and pickle sandwiches, gammon and pineapple crisps, and trifle.  Washing it all down with the best ale you have ever tasted; so good, it doesn’t need to be cold to mask the flavor.

But lately I have noticed my beloved Oxford is nurturing academics who are exporting some seriously pernicious ideas.  Of course, there is Peter Singer who needs no introduction.  He did his graduate work in philosophy at Oxford after which he wrote Animal Liberation and Practical Ethics. Both books argue the utilitarian perspective that ethics are based on the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Animal “rights,” infanticide, euthanasia…  Oh my!

Singer’s student was Julian Savulescu who is now the Director of the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics and the Director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics.  Dr. Savulescu has written much on “procreative beneficence” in which he argues that parents should choose the “best” child slated to have the “best” life judged simply on his or her genetics.  Savulescu is also the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics that recently published the now infamous article “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”  Savulescu wrote a defense of the infanticide justification calling it nothing new and suggesting that it was those of us who found the entire thing morally repugnant who had the problem.

Not surprisingly, the authors of the “After-Birth Abortion” paper that has sparked some serious outrage, also have ties to Oxford.  The first author, Dr. Francesca Minerva, while getting her Ph.D., was a visiting student at Oxford’s Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics where she is now a Research Associate –the same Centre for Practical Ethics where Savulescu is the director.  The other author of the infanticide paper is Alberto Giubilini who has a podcast on the University of Oxford website where he argues that “there is no sound moral reason against euthanasia.”

Then there was the recent paper in the journal Ethics, Policy & Environment where the authors “explore” ways to engineer humanity to “combat climate change.”  Among the possibilities discussed was stunting our children’s growth with drugs or genetic modification to make them smaller or genetically modifying our eyes to be like cat eyes so we won’t need lights at night.  S. Matthew Liao, professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University, has gotten all the press but the other two authors are, guess what? Yep, from Oxford.  Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache are both professors at Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute, a part of the University of Oxford’s Faculty of Philosophy.

Is this the same Oxford of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien?  Doesn’t seem so.

Why do I find this concerning?  Wesley J. Smith is right.  What first begins as discussions in academic journals becomes policy for the masses.

Is Oxford the only ivory tower spewing scary utilitarian ethics?  Of course not, but lately it seems to be leading the charge.  I for one will be keeping a very close eye on both Oxford’s Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and Future of Humanity Institute — neither of which seem very ethical or very promising for humanity’s future.

This article courtesy of Creative Minority Report.


About Author

  • Take a look at “That Hideous Strength” and there you’ll find your answer. Soon we will hear something about the extermination of certain races or calls for the legalization of bestiality. Academia is running out of abominations to promote. It all started with “Why should we have a Pope?” about 500 years ago. Now you see the full fruit. Visionaries like C.S. Lewis saw it coming and wrote about it. They were insiders back then and they knew what was brewing.

    • Guest

      Yeah, the world is so horrible now with slavery abolished and females having rights. I wish we could go back to the good old days when us pure people did not need to breathe the same air as those blackies do.

      • Guest II

        This is an example of a post hoc fallacy. It’s foolhardy to even suggest that breaking from natural law is what precipitated rights for women and abolition. The two don’t follow. Very silly.

      • Guy McClung

        slavery abolished? Muslims today have black slaves; more black on black slavery in most countries where it flourishes now than at any time in their histories. As with colleges and universities in my home town – 4 of them then Catholic, now none of them Catholic- Oxford was once faith-based rather than as now scientific-dogma based. Guy McClung, San Antonio

    • Guy McClung

      And will the upcoming Synod “pastorally welcome” not only those who say they were made to engage in bestiality, this is their identity, as well as their pets?

  • A proper Oxonian

    I’m not surprised you failed at Oxford.