DebateLabKIT/deepa2-corpus · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 1.71k
the meeting was about to get underway, a group of people
challenged the organizers, accusing them of giving a platform
to a 'fascist' and an 'advocate of modem mass extermination'.
They distributed leaflets headed 'No Discussion about Life and
Death'. The meeting had to be abandoned.
4 Eine Frage des Lebens: Ethik der Abtreibung and Kunstlichen Befruchtung (Frankfurt:
Campus, 1990).
5 Analyse & Kritik, December 12, 1990.
339
Appendix
The International Wittgenstein Symposium, held annually at
Kirchberg, in Austria, has established itself as one of the principal
philosophical conferences on the continent of Europe. The
fifteenth International Wittgenstein Conference was to have
been held in August 1991, on the theme' Applied Ethics'. Arrangements
for the program were made by philosophers from
the Institute for Philosophy at the University of Salzburg. Among
those invited to speak were Professor Georg Meggle, of the
University of Saarbriicken, Professor R. M. Hare, former White's
Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford, and
now a professor of philosophy at the University of Florida,
Gainesville, and myself. When the names of those invited became
known, threats were made to the president of the Austrian
Ludwig Wittgenstein Society, Dr. Adolf Hubner, that the symposium
would be disrupted unless the invitations to Professor
Meggle and me were withdrawn. In other public discussions
with opponents of the program, the boycott threat was extended
to include several other invited professors: Hare, Kliemt, Hoerster,
and Professor Dietrich Birnbacher of the department of
philosophy at the Gesamthochschule in Essen.6
Dr. Hubner is not a philosopher; he is a retired agricultural
veterinarian, so he read Practical Ethics only after the protest
arose. On reading it, however, he formed the opinion that-as
he wrote in an Austrian newspaper-the protests were 'entirely
justified,.7 In a long letter to the board of directors of the Austrian
Ludwig Wittgenstein Society he wrote that 'as a result of the
invitations to philosophers who hold the view that ethics can
be grounded and carried out in the manner of an objective
critical science, an existential crisis has arisen for the Austrian
6 During the period when opposition to the Wittgenstein Symposium was being
stirred up, these philosophers were all described, in terms calculated to arouse
a hostile response, in a special 'euthanasia issue' of the Austrian journal
erziehung heute (education today) (Innsbruck, 1991), p. 37.
7 Adolf Hubner, 'Euthanasie diskussion im Geiste Ludwig Wittgenstein?' Der
Standard (Vienna), May 21, 1991.
340
Appendix
Wittgenstein Symposium and the Wittgenstein Society'. 8 The
reference to the 'objective critical science' is striking, since Hare,
in particular, has devoted much of his life to insisting on the
differences between ethical judgments and statements to which
notions of objective truth or falsity are standardly applied.
According to some reports, opposition groups threatened to
stage a display on 'Kirchberg under the Nazis' if the invitations
were not withdrawn. This threat proved so potent that innkeepers
in Kirchberg were said to have stated that they would
refuse to serve philosophers during the symposium.9 To its considerable
credit, the organizing committee resisted Dr. Hubner's
proposal to withdraw the invitations from those philosophers
against whom the protests were directed. Instead, it recommended
that the entire symposium be canceled, since Dr. Hubner's
public intervention in the debate had made it unlikely that
it could be held without disruption. This recommendation was
accepted by the committee ofthe Austrian Wittgenstein Society,
against the will of Dr. Hubner himself. There will be no Wittgenstein
Symposium in 1991.
For those who believe that there is a strong consensus throughout
Western Europe supporting freedom of thought and discussion
in general. and academic freedom in particular, these
scenes come as a shock. How they have come about, however,
is not so difficult to explain. The story has its beginnings in
events in which I was directly involved. It stems from an invitation
I received to speak, in June 1989, at a European Symposium
on 'Bioengineering, Ethics, and Mental Disability',
organized jointly by Lebenshilfe, the major German organization
for parents of intellectually disabled infants, and the Bishop
8 'Die krisenhafte Situation der Osterreichischen Ludwig Wittgenstein Gesellschaft,
ausgelost durch die Einladungspraxis zum Thema "Angewandte
Ethik" , (unpublished typescript).
9 Martin Sturzinger, 'Ein Totungshelfer mit faschistischem Gedankengut?' Die
Weltwoche (Zurich), May 23, 1991, p. 83.
341
Appendix
Bekkers Institute, a Dutch organization in the same field. The
symposium was to be held in Marburg, a German university
town, under the auspices of the International League of Societies
for Persons with Mental Handicap, and the International Association
for the Scientific Study of Mental Deficiency. The program
looked impressive; after an opening speec,h from the
German minister of family affairs, the conference was to be
addressed by leading geneticists, bioethicists, theologians, and
health-care lawyers from the United States, Canada, the Netherlands,
England, France, and, of course, Germany. I accepted
the invitation; and since I was going to be in Germany anyway,
I also accepted an invitation from Professor Christoph Anst6tz,
professor of special education at the University of Dortmund,
to give a lecture a few days later on the subject 'Do severely
disabled newborn infants have a right to life?'
My intention in these lectures was to defend a view for which
I have argued in several previously published works: that the

the meeting was about to get underway, a group of people

challenged the organizers, accusing them of giving a platform

to a 'fascist' and an 'advocate of modem mass extermination'.

They distributed leaflets headed 'No Discussion about Life and

Death'. The meeting had to be abandoned.

4 Eine Frage des Lebens: Ethik der Abtreibung and Kunstlichen Befruchtung (Frankfurt:

Campus, 1990).

5 Analyse & Kritik, December 12, 1990.

339

Appendix

The International Wittgenstein Symposium, held annually at

Kirchberg, in Austria, has established itself as one of the principal

philosophical conferences on the continent of Europe. The

fifteenth International Wittgenstein Conference was to have

been held in August 1991, on the theme' Applied Ethics'. Arrangements

for the program were made by philosophers from

the Institute for Philosophy at the University of Salzburg. Among

those invited to speak were Professor Georg Meggle, of the

University of Saarbriicken, Professor R. M. Hare, former White's

Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford, and

now a professor of philosophy at the University of Florida,

Gainesville, and myself. When the names of those invited became

known, threats were made to the president of the Austrian

Ludwig Wittgenstein Society, Dr. Adolf Hubner, that the symposium

would be disrupted unless the invitations to Professor

Meggle and me were withdrawn. In other public discussions

with opponents of the program, the boycott threat was extended

to include several other invited professors: Hare, Kliemt, Hoerster,

and Professor Dietrich Birnbacher of the department of

philosophy at the Gesamthochschule in Essen.6

Dr. Hubner is not a philosopher; he is a retired agricultural

veterinarian, so he read Practical Ethics only after the protest

arose. On reading it, however, he formed the opinion that-as

he wrote in an Austrian newspaper-the protests were 'entirely

justified,.7 In a long letter to the board of directors of the Austrian

Ludwig Wittgenstein Society he wrote that 'as a result of the

invitations to philosophers who hold the view that ethics can

be grounded and carried out in the manner of an objective

critical science, an existential crisis has arisen for the Austrian

6 During the period when opposition to the Wittgenstein Symposium was being

stirred up, these philosophers were all described, in terms calculated to arouse

a hostile response, in a special 'euthanasia issue' of the Austrian journal

erziehung heute (education today) (Innsbruck, 1991), p. 37.

7 Adolf Hubner, 'Euthanasie diskussion im Geiste Ludwig Wittgenstein?' Der

Standard (Vienna), May 21, 1991.

340

Appendix

Wittgenstein Symposium and the Wittgenstein Society'. 8 The

reference to the 'objective critical science' is striking, since Hare,

in particular, has devoted much of his life to insisting on the

differences between ethical judgments and statements to which

notions of objective truth or falsity are standardly applied.

According to some reports, opposition groups threatened to

stage a display on 'Kirchberg under the Nazis' if the invitations

were not withdrawn. This threat proved so potent that innkeepers

in Kirchberg were said to have stated that they would

refuse to serve philosophers during the symposium.9 To its considerable

credit, the organizing committee resisted Dr. Hubner's

proposal to withdraw the invitations from those philosophers

against whom the protests were directed. Instead, it recommended

that the entire symposium be canceled, since Dr. Hubner's

public intervention in the debate had made it unlikely that

it could be held without disruption. This recommendation was

accepted by the committee ofthe Austrian Wittgenstein Society,

against the will of Dr. Hubner himself. There will be no Wittgenstein

Symposium in 1991.

For those who believe that there is a strong consensus throughout

Western Europe supporting freedom of thought and discussion

in general. and academic freedom in particular, these

scenes come as a shock. How they have come about, however,

is not so difficult to explain. The story has its beginnings in

events in which I was directly involved. It stems from an invitation

I received to speak, in June 1989, at a European Symposium

on 'Bioengineering, Ethics, and Mental Disability',

organized jointly by Lebenshilfe, the major German organization

for parents of intellectually disabled infants, and the Bishop

8 'Die krisenhafte Situation der Osterreichischen Ludwig Wittgenstein Gesellschaft,

ausgelost durch die Einladungspraxis zum Thema "Angewandte

Ethik" , (unpublished typescript).

9 Martin Sturzinger, 'Ein Totungshelfer mit faschistischem Gedankengut?' Die

Weltwoche (Zurich), May 23, 1991, p. 83.

341

Appendix

Bekkers Institute, a Dutch organization in the same field. The

symposium was to be held in Marburg, a German university

town, under the auspices of the International League of Societies

for Persons with Mental Handicap, and the International Association

for the Scientific Study of Mental Deficiency. The program

looked impressive; after an opening speec,h from the

German minister of family affairs, the conference was to be

addressed by leading geneticists, bioethicists, theologians, and

health-care lawyers from the United States, Canada, the Netherlands,

England, France, and, of course, Germany. I accepted

the invitation; and since I was going to be in Germany anyway,

I also accepted an invitation from Professor Christoph Anst6tz,

professor of special education at the University of Dortmund,

to give a lecture a few days later on the subject 'Do severely

disabled newborn infants have a right to life?'

My intention in these lectures was to defend a view for which

I have argued in several previously published works: that the