Peter Singer: Grant Right to Life for Animals but not Babies
The world's foremost proponent of infanticide, Peter Singer, argues in the Guardian in favor of granting legal rights to great apes and perhaps other animals. Among the rights these animals should possess, he claims, is the right to life. Yet, the same Peter Singer has written that killing a baby is no more problematic morally than killing a fish since neither are, in his view, "persons." I wonder if Singer would support ape infanticide? He does support ape euthanasia, of course. Just as he does people with Alzheimer's.
Singer also wants to grant a right not to be "tortured." Of course, such a right would only apply against humans. If a pack of chimpanzees attacked another pack, torturing and killing, as sometimes happens--no one would suggest that they be "punished" for the "crime," since no crime would have occurred. If humans did that, it would be immoral and criminal, not only because of the pain caused to the animals but because the act amounts to lower than human action. Similarly, if a lion tore a chimp apart, Singer would not suggest that the lion face trial and imprisonment. This is because neither chimps nor lions are moral beings. (Singer's suggestion that apes resent not having favors returned, and so have a sense of justice, is hardly equivalent.)
Of course, we should punish any human who tortures an animal. That is because we are the only beings in the known universe who can--and should--be held accountable for our actions. But the issue Singer is interested in isn't really preventing torture, properly understood, but rather at interfering with necessary medical research.
Singer claims that great apes are not used in research any more. But chimps were unquestionably needed to create the Hepatitis vaccine. It appears increasingly likely that HIV came from chimpanzees who harbor a very similar virus (SIV) and yet, don't get sick from it. This means there is undoubtedly much to learn from performing humane experiments on these wonderful animals to help us find effective treatments or a vaccine for HIV, as two examples.
I don't believe we should use chimps in research lightly. But in an appropriate case to prevent substantial human harm or promote substantial human benefit, and when there is no other reasonable choice, we need to be free to experiment on these wonderful animals--subject always to proper standards of care.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 6:35 PM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
There is no doubt in my mind Peter Singer is certifiable--and dangerous because he actually has a forum via a professorship and media access. Not only is he "off the wall," but his writings threaten the good work animal welfare groups (not PETA) and environmentalists are trying to do. He gives too much ammunition to the other side because of his nutball beliefs about so-called "animal rights" and his hatred for the disabled.
You won't get an argument from me.
If I'm correct, Peter Singer also believes that there can be "consensual" sexual relationships between human beings and animals.
That obviously explains HIS family tree!
Well, there have been instances of dogs taking the initiative and having sex with women. I don't think any coercion happened in those cases.
"Consensual" in the context of sexual relations is generally understood to refer to mutual consent. Singer's understandings of this consent and so may other issues in bioethics are skewed by his deficient understandings of human and animal nature. Because he starts with a cracked foundation, there is no surprize in Singer's dysfunctional moral and ethical paradigm.
As I've said before, Peter Singer uses the ability to suffer as his main (or sole) criterion, which is why he's written that he can possibly support the eating of...shrimp (I believe). As a vegetarian who believes more in the VALUE of life than in the QUALITY of life (or in using Singer's criterion), I find Singer an embarrassment, as do many animal lovers/vegetarians. I imagine that his fellow Ivy Leaguers and even many pro-choicers find themselves embarrassed by him, too.)
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Singer thinks we should permit the euthanization of severly disabled babies where that option is chosen by parents. His aim is to avoid situations where heroic efforts are made to keep babies alive who will endure painful lives, or where parents will be severely burdened. His point re: Great Apes is, I presume, that they shouldn't hunted for sport, or in other ways killed for human amusement. So, he has in mind something rather subtle and particular when he denies the right to life of babies, and when he grants a right to life to Great Apes. Your headline cheaply implies that there is a contradiction in his position, when in fact that apparent contradiction arises only on a shallow and confused reading of Singer's arguments.
Regarding the point that Singer focuses on the quality of life, and not its 'value', I think you should explain your position before calling Singer an embarassment for rejecting it. If you would sooner save a puppy than a fern from a burning building, I expect it's because you believe certain of the puppy's qualities (i.e. its sentience and cognitive capacities) make it more valuable than a fern. In short, a being's qualities are determinative of its value.
Also, Singer has said in print that he does not eat shrimp and does not endorse others' eating them.
I get sick of people calling Peter Singer names; it's like dealing with schoolkids. If you don't like his argument, why not write something intelligent back, and I'm sure that he'd be glad to argue with you. Also, he does not condone eating shrimp, and he does not believe that there can be "consensual" relationships with animals. He must have been lied about more than any man on Earth.
Post a Comment
<< Home