Part One. Lexicon of Terms Pertinent to Peter
Singer’s Moral Philosophy.
One.
Utilitarianism, the philosophy that we should sacrifice the individual for the
greater good of the collective whole.
From Economy: Definition: Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy, generally
operating on the principle that the utility (happiness or satisfaction) of
different people can not only be measured but also meaningfully summed over
people and that utility comparisons between people are meaningful. That makes
it possible to achieve a well-defined societal optimum in allocations,
production, and other decisions, and achieve the goal utilitarian British
philosopher Jeremy Bentham described as "the greatest good for the
greatest number."
This form of utilitarianism is thought of as extreme,
now, partly because it is widely believed that there exists no generally
acceptable way of summing utilities across people and comparing between them.
Two. “quality
of life” argument: human life is only valuable if a certain “quality” can be
achieved; otherwise life is better off destroyed.
Three.
“normal children”: They can achieve a “quality of life” and should take
priority over “abnormal children” who should be euthanized.
Four.
“infants are replaceable”: we should replace abnormal infants with normal ones
for the “greater good.” The moral imperative is that we are reducing suffering
and adding more productive citizens to society as opposed to citizens who put a
burden on society.
Five.
Eugenicist, one who defends the idea that we should select what humans are
desirable based on genetics and which ones should be replaced, that is
euthanized, for the betterment of society. The eugenicist also develops the
criteria for making these choices.
Six. Nebulous
definition of “personhood.”
Seven.
Intrinsic value of human life, called the sanctity of life vs. conditional
value of human life based on “quality of life.”
Eight.
Apologist for eugenics. An apologist takes controversial or unpopular ideas and
makes them appealing by defending their validity and showing why those views
are correct.
Nine. Peter
Singer is an advocate for genetic re-engineering.
Ten.
Market-driven and peer-pressure-driven forces for genetic re-engineering. The result
will be a loss of diversity. Most women will like Salma Hayek and Beyonce while
most men will look like Will Smith and Brad Pitt. See the New Eugenics.
Part Two. Peter Singer’s Major Arguments
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, an 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.”
Refutation of Peter Singer: Thesis One:
While Singer’s argument for infanticide is consistent
with his utilitarian worldview, his position collapses under the close eye of
scrutiny in which detect huge holes or flaws in his reasoning. These flaws
include __________________________, ___________________________,
____________________________, and __________________________.
Defense of Peter Singer: Thesis Two:
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 can be
ethically defended as actually helping the human race when we consider
_________________________, _______________________,
___________________________, and _______________________________.
Part Four. Some Salient Titles
Must I Conform to Peter Singer's Definition of Happiness So I Can Live?
Be Happy Singer's Way . . . Or Die
Let Go of the Stale Past and Become New and Improved, Peter Singer Style
We Limit Ourselves By Dismissing Peter Singer So Quickly
Comments