An Hypothetical Frog
A hypothetical, yet not entirely impertinent, question:
It is a normal yet wonderful part of human existence to love. There are but few of us who do not cherish another more than life itself. Be it a brother, a friend, a mother, child, or wife, there is one in our lives we would die to protect. Imagine your loved on is a baby girl.
Now imagine this one, this one you love more than life itself, has been turned into a frog by the enchantment of an evil witch. Imagine further that the nature of the enchantment is such that, inevitably, invariably, the spell will gradually wear off after nine months, and can never be cast again, by that witch or any other.
During those nine months when your beloved little girl is temporarily a frog, is it proper to kill the frog or to allow her to be killed? Is it morally acceptable? Would you nonchalantly stand idly by while a French chef chopped off your little girl’s legs to eat?
Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that you are not so shallow a wretch as to stand idly by while your little girl is threatened: you selflessly throw yourself between the frog and the knives of the salivating chef.
The chef objects: he tells you to move out of the way.
You say, “But this is a person, my little girl, my baby, the person I love best in all the world!”
The chef says, no, no. Observe: this frog has neither hands nor upright posture, nor intelligence, nor human features. Scientific examination of the brainwaves show the nervous system is primitive, froglike, not manlike. It is clearly not a human.
You say, “The frog under a spell; in ninth months, the spell inevitably wears off, and all the features you mention, human face and form, human speech and mind and soul, will be present then: they are merely in abeyance now, and exist only in potential.”
The chef says, caring for a frog for nine months will produce a terrific financial burden, and the action of the magic spell, when it breaks, might cause you pain and turmoil: it is the nature of the magic that there is a risk to you.
You say, “But this is my best beloved one, the one I love above all others. What kind of parent would I be if I let such considerations stand between me and the life of my child?”
The chef says, ah, but what if you decide you do not like your child? By the time she regains her human face and form, her blue eyes and golden curls, it will be to late to kill her then. Now, while she is a frog, it is both legal and moral, for there is no law against killing frogs.
You say, “But if it is illegal to kill human beings, surely it is illegal to kill a human being merely because he is under a spell, and temporarily does not exhibit the outward signs of his humanity?”
The chef says, oh but no! Truly enlightened thinkers, progressive thinkers, hold it to be not merely moral to kill enchanted human beings, but a matter of right and moral duty; a personal and private choice that is the exquisite essence of liberty itself.
You say, “Aren’t we talking about killing my child? What should it matter if she looks like a frog for nine months?”
The chef says, yes, but surely it is your choice, your right to chose, whether or not you love your child; and surely, if you chose not to love your child, you are well within your rights to kill her while she is a frog.
Dear reader, is there anything wrong with the chef’s argument?
Second hypothetical, given the same circumstances as the first. The frog that is your beloved daughter has been placed in a box with nine other frogs. These nine frogs will still be frogs in nine months, whereas your daughter will return to you once the spell is broken in nine months. The chef wants to take merely one frog from the box at random and boil it up for lunch. He argues that the chances that your daughter will die is only ten per cent. Do you let him reach into the box and kill one of the frogs at random, or do you shield the nonhuman frogs from harm in order to be sure your daughter will live?
If you choose the second option, please note that you must protect all organisms who live in the box, even those whose humanity is unknown or undetermined. If it is an organism living in a human womb, whose humanity is still a matter of legitimate scientific debate and doubt, do you shield all products of conception from harm in order to be sure that those products of conception we call babies will live?
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
