Part One. Quiz Contest:
From reading today’s essay, explain what is morally objectionable about
Peter Singer.
Part Two. Lexicon
One. Peter Singer’s quality of life argument for infanticide:
His
stated reason, rather, is that such children have diminished prospects of
eventually enjoying an adequate "quality of life", in his words, and
to allow them to live would take away resources from what Singer calls
"normal" children. He therefore advocates killing
"disabled" infants, if the parents so choose, and replacing them with
"normal" ones. The terminology of "replacement" is Singer's
own; his philosophy "treats infants as replaceable", in his words (Practical
Ethics p. 186).
Why,
then, does Singer argue that infants born with this condition can justly be
killed? Because they are "abnormal" and do not have "good
prospects" (Rethinking p. 214). This notion of
"prospects" runs like a mantra through Singer's discussion of Down
syndrome children: "the future prospects of life may be so bleak"
(211), "the prospects are clouded" (213), and so forth. But what sort
of prospects does he have in mind? On p. 213 of Rethinking he lists
several activities which a person with Down syndrome will supposedly never be
capable of: "to play the guitar, to develop an appreciation of science
fiction, to learn a foreign language, to chat with us about the latest Woody
Allen movie, or to be a respectable athlete,
basketballer or tennis player." This list reads like a parody of
bourgeois myths of achievement, success, and respectability. To Singer, however,
these are legitimate reasons for killing a newborn. After all, if you can't do
your own financial planning, why should you be allowed to live?
Two. Peter Singer’s utilitarian argument
for infanticide:
What
counts as a "severe disability" for Singer? He intentionally leaves
the term vague to allow for a broad range of parental discretion, but he has
discussed a number of specific examples, both hypothetical as well as actual
cases. The conditions he has explicitly named as sufficient justification for
active infanticide include Down syndrome, spina bifida, and hemophilia. Here is
Singer's reasoning on the latter condition, taken from his popular textbook Practical
Ethics (P. 186): "Suppose a woman planning to have two children has
one normal child, then gives birth to a haemophiliac child. The burden of
caring for that child may make it impossible for her to cope with a third
child; but if the disabled child were to die, she would have another. . . .
When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant
with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be
greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first
infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore,
if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would,
according to the total view, be right to kill him."
Three. Peter Singer’s definition of a
“person” or someone who is worthy of the label “personhood”:
a
conscious being, a creature who has the
capacity to imagine the future. This definition can apply to humans, animals,
and creatures. A “person” should not be killed, but a human baby suffering
severe retardation or some other handicap is not a “person.”
Four. Utilitarian Slippery Slope:
If we
agree that we should aim for the greatest good for the greatest amount of
people and that handicapped people burden the “greatest good,” at what point do
we stop at defining who constitutes a “burden”? Smokers, the obese, criminals,
the handicapped, the autistic? Where do we stop?
Five. Peter Singer’s “Worse Off” Argument:
Disability
makes a person worse off and therefore that person should be killed. And Peter
Singer is comfortable judging who’s “worse off” and who’s not, a very
subjective condition. See page 97 and page 106 top.
Six.
Peter Singer’s Eugenicist Position:
The
eugenicist position endorses selection according to desirable and undesirable
genetic traits, and favors the elimination of the latter. Singer's argument
sorts people into two categories, "normal" and "abnormal",
and declares the ostensibly abnormal ones fair game at birth. He doesn't even
bother to try to provide "objective" grounds on which to classify
some human physical or mental conditions as "defective" (a term he
used in earlier editions of Practical Ethics) and contrast them with
"healthy" ones. Instead he simply welcomes whatever arbitrary social
norms happen to prevail, thus turning his argument into a vehicle for
prejudice. But of course there is no perfect, flawless version of the human
form against which putatively "inferior" specimens could be measured.
Seven. Harriet McBryde Johnson’s quality
of life argument:
Studies
show that the public underestimates the quality of life for most handicapped
people based on stereotypes. See 104 top.
Part Three: Essay #3 Option:
Defend or refute Peter Singer’s position
that there are moral grounds for infanticide or “mercy killings.”
Thesis One:
Peter Singer’s utilitarian position on
infanticide is asinine, full of false claims, vague definitions, and morally
bankrupt.
Thesis Two:
While Singer’s argument for infanticide is
consistent with his utilitarian worldview, his position collapses under the
close eye of scrutiny in which we detect huge holes or flaws in his reasoning.
These flaws include __________________________, ___________________________,
____________________________, and __________________________.
Thesis Three:
McMahon has treated Peter Singer’s
infanticide argument with gross unfairness. While McMahon is correct that
Singer needs to tidy up some of his vague definitions, Singer’s general
argument is rigorous, moral, and defensible.
Comments