Writing in the Christmas edition of The Spectator, Matthew Parris quoted George Eliot's observation in Middlemarch that the "pier-glass or extensive surface of polished steel made to be rubbed by a housemaid, will be minutely and multitudinously scratched in all directions", but in the light of a candle, these "scratches will seem to arrange themselves in a fine series of concentric circles round that little sun"; however, "it is only your candle which produces the flattering illusion of concentric arrangement... These things are a parable..."
The "parable" for Mr Parris was that "[e]ach of us is a lighted candle, each of us surveying and experiencing a world that is necessarily arranged around the eye - ours - that sees it." He applied this to Matthew's Gospel (26:11), where Jesus reprimands his followers for complaining that a woman who poured expensive oil on him should instead have given the money to the poor. "Ye have the poor always with you," he chides, "but me ye have not always." Mr Parris says: "Indeed not, and he is to be crucified."
However, he adds that the "solipsism ... is to see 'the poor' as the background: and of course, as background, we do have 'the poor' always with us. But place Eliot's candle in the hands of an individual poor person, and place Jesus in the category of religious teachers, and the concentricity shifts. ... Driven by his solipsism, Jesus has made what philosophers call a category mistake" ("We are all George Eliot's lighted candle").
But Mr Parris's mistake is to overlook Jesus' teaching the very opposite of neglecting the poor, as in Matthew 5:3 and 25:35-36, and Luke 6:20-21. Furthermore, He warned against the love of worldly wealth, urging us to store up real treasure in Heaven (Luke 16:19-31), especially by giving to those who cannot repay (Luke 14:13-14).
He warned the rich they would suffer the fate of all mortals - in some cases, sooner than expected (Luke 12:16-21) - and His remark about the poor being "always with you" could be seen not as evidence of solipsism but as a satire on it - a wry commentary on those who suddenly notice the poor when they can accuse somebody else of neglecting them.
George Eliot was at best an agnostic, and Mr Parris himself has stated that "Christians should face up to this: the whole atonement thing is a terrible muddle, a tangle of primitive and modern thinking, a proselytising salesman's wheeze, a mess. Trying to make sense of it is a waste of time. Blame Paul. But don't blame Jesus: it was never his idea in the first place."
This is despite Jesus saying that He came to give His "life as a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28). And speaking of solipsism, elsewhere, Mr Parris has stated: "Falling birth rates are not a crisis", since "the fewer of us there are, the greater for each will be our share; and the more easily we could halt the despoilation of the planet", arguing illogically that "[t]he world might become a nicer place to bring children into."
At the other end of life, in The Times of 20 November 2004, in "Suicide is not painless, but it can be brave, right and rational", the former Conservative MP argued:
"Self-inflicted death is the ultimate defiance, the one freedom in your life and mine which nothing and nobody -- not even God -- can take away."
While seeing "assisted dying" as "inevitable", he has claimed that religious opponents, knowing that 'secular and medical claims' are more acceptable, "hide" their real motivations; moreover, he impatiently rejected warnings that the unscrupulous would use 'assisted dying' to exploit the vulnerable. This is despite all the evidence to the contrary.
In even more solipsistic vein, in "Ignore the reactionaries who oppose assisted dying", he said it "would be a good thing" if those relying on others for care actually did feel burdensome; that the "option" to cut short their lives would "have to be more easily available" - "social mores" would have to "change" to "accommodate" feelings of burdensomeness in such dependants, until eventually the suicide of the sick becomes "normalised in popular morality".
As someone who would be eligible for this "benefit" - I am disabled and reliant on others for help - I expressed gratitude to Mr Parris for blurting out his views - for outlining a system of "euthanomics".
Utilitarian views have been expounded by Labour peer Lord Falconer of Thoroton, a sponsor of Labour MP Kim Leadbeater's Assisted Dying Bill, who put forward his own Bill in 2015; meanwhile, Leadbeater herself has expressed similar opinions.
Regarding her Bill, a Labour Party spokesperson insisted: "It's completely normal for a wide range of policy proposals to be assessed by political parties in opposition. MPs have been able to vote with their conscience ... and the government has not taken a position. It is for MPs to decide whether this bill is passed."
A Leadbeater spokesperson "categorically denied" that she "had any conversations with No 10 or the party leadership before she took up the issue of assisted dying after winning the private member's bill ballot." The measure featured nowhere in Labour's Election manifesto, but in December 2023, Labour MP (now Prime Minister) Sir Keir Starmer informed journalists: "There are grounds for changing the law ... Traditionally this has always been dealt with through a private member's bill and a free vote, and that seems appropriate to me."
A prominent supporter, Sir Keir may ensure that is legalised since, in the face of a deluge of criticism and objections, he has provided more time for the Bill's passage through the House of Lords.
So much for neutrality. And last December, a leaked document revealed that "Labour planned while in opposition how to introduce assisted dying via a private member's bill, suggesting that would still allow 'heavy influence' for the government in the process".
The November 2023 policy note referred 11 times to campaign organisation Dignity in Dying, and warned that the Party's current "neutral" stance 'was "unlikely to sustain us through an election campaign" featuring "strong, impactful campaigns in favour of assisted dying"; also the measure "was 'popular with the public'", with "a Daily Express campaign to legalise assisted dying and a Sky News poll" suggesting "widespread support for the change."
A Private Members' Bill, the note said, would allow "all members of the house a free, conscience vote on a cross-party matter", however: "We ... know we can control the parameters of legislation carefully through working with advocacy groups and government civil servants to draft the legislation and provide conditions for parliamentary time." Government legislation "would carry more risks by Labour taking ownership of the issue", while "the parameters of any bill could be 'influenced heavily through the PMB process if we are lending government support'."
Not all agreed: a Labour Party "source opposed to the bill" found it "bitterly disappointing that No. 10 ... sought to use the machinery of government and other parties as cover on an issue that needs more scrutiny, not less."
Crucially, while campaigners have emphasised people "dying in agony", they fail to mention the duty of health providers to ease pain, or to provide palliative care, which can successfully manage end-of-life issues; instead, they push for medical staff to help patients poison themselves. Interestingly, in this context, the policy note also warned "that any legislation that included intolerable suffering as a route to assisted dying 'should not be considered by Labour at this time and would carry significant political and ethical risk, alongside opposition from... NHS staff'."
Even more worryingly, however, Lord Falconer has suggested that religion be excluded from the debate: regarding justice secretary Shabana Mahmood being "motivated 'by her religious beliefs' to reject 'assisted dying'", The Times reported his lordship as saying that government "ministers' religion 'colours their view and is not an objective stance'" - "that their spiritual stance should not be 'imposed on everybody else'."
Clearly, it is fine for the non-spiritual to impose their stance on 'everybody else', and Mr Parris seems to feel that his lack of religion allows him to comment on controversial issues, including religion, while excluding those who are religious.
Significantly, his biblical interpretation missed the fact that Jesus' followers did not try to hasten his death but stood with him at the foot of the cross, to the very end (Matthew: 32-56; Mark: 23-41; Luke 23: 33-49; John 19: 25-35), even though no better example of the need to prevent suffering could be seen than in the agonising, long-drawn-out execution of an innocent man who has done only good.
Today, Jesus' followers continue to follow His commands in helping the helpless - indeed, it was Dame Cicely Saunders, a committed Christian and doughty opponent of assisted suicide/euthanasia, who pioneered the modern hospice movement in the United Kingdom.
In contrast, atheism would dictate that if suffering cannot be cured, it is better to kill the sufferer. Death is indeed the answer to all human problems, but as the Nazis especially realised, it is also the answer to all problem humans. And if our forebears had followed this path, there would have been few cures for the sick and certainly no comfort for the dying.
Significantly, it is Christians who continue to relieve poverty around the world, even in the most unpromising circumstances, and even under severe pressure, not least from militant Islam, but also in the West, from the view that Christians should be excluded from ethical discussions, while atheists are allowed to participate because of their "neutral" stance.
Yet, Christianity still thrives among the very people that Mr Parris says Jesus marginalised - the poor; also the poor in spirit - indeed, both church attendance and the sale of Bibles are rising, much to the surprise of those who insist that the Church is dying out.
Christianity, whose death has been often predicted (hopefully by some), has rather, as G. K. Chesterton observed, "died many times and risen again", since "it had a God who knew the way out of the grave".
Nonetheless, atheists would exclude Christians from ethical debate, despite seeing the fruits of those ethics all around them; but while atheist hospitals, clinics, schools, etc., are conspicuous by their absence, if all those helpful institutions that originated in Christian ideals are eventually taken over by the atheist worldview, it may kill them, for the solipsistic answer to all human problems - and all problem humans - is death, whether before or after birth.
Elsewhere, while admitting to being "a non-believer", ironically, Mr Parris concluded: "Perhaps we have not, after all, abolished God: instead we have appointed ourselves to the post."
Indeed, but we need not speculate about how this solipsistic "religion of the self" might operate, for since Man's earliest origins, it has disposed human beings to sin, the very first sin being better known as Original Sin: pride, or thinking we know better than God.
It was for this reason that Christ came to save us, for only God can save us from ourselves; and given Mr Parris's insistence that the interests of the vulnerable should give way to those of the "well and wealthy", he himself may not be entirely immune to the dangers of solipsism.
When it comes to ethical matters, some would wish that Christians were a little more solipsistic and a little less intrusive. But just as well we do intervene, or the pro-death campaigners would triumph. We can at least hope that the British are solipsistic enough to realise that legalising medical homicide would not affect "just a few hard cases", but sooner or later would threaten their own right to life.
But suicide cults are doomed to die out, and solipsism will never rival Christianity as a religion: a society of dedicated solipsists would be an impossibility, since those who really follow it would only worship themselves.