Of Peter Singer, Love, and a Beautiful Child with Down Syndrome
There was a wonderful article published in the Times of London by a father and the parenting of a child with Down syndrome. I thought of writing about it here at Secondhand Smoke, but thought the best place for it would be over at the First Things blog. It is out today.
In the article, among other matters, I compare the unconditional love of a father with the sterile utilitarian "ethics" of Peter Singer. And I conclude: "What a stark difference between the attitudes of these two men toward the weakest and most vulnerable among us, a difference that can be described literally as the distinction between loving and killing. And indeed, for those familiar with Singer's writing, it is striking how often he writes of satisfying personal desires and how rarely he writes of sacrifice and love. Which, when you think about it, provides vivid clarity about the stakes we face in the ongoing contest for societal dominance between the sanctity/equality of life ethic and Singer's proposed 'quality of life' ethic: The former opens the door to the potential for unconditional love, while the latter presumes the power to coolly dismiss some of us from life based on defective workmanship. The choice we make about these contrasting paths will determine whether we remain a moral society committed to the pursuit of universal human rights."
In the article, among other matters, I compare the unconditional love of a father with the sterile utilitarian "ethics" of Peter Singer. And I conclude: "What a stark difference between the attitudes of these two men toward the weakest and most vulnerable among us, a difference that can be described literally as the distinction between loving and killing. And indeed, for those familiar with Singer's writing, it is striking how often he writes of satisfying personal desires and how rarely he writes of sacrifice and love. Which, when you think about it, provides vivid clarity about the stakes we face in the ongoing contest for societal dominance between the sanctity/equality of life ethic and Singer's proposed 'quality of life' ethic: The former opens the door to the potential for unconditional love, while the latter presumes the power to coolly dismiss some of us from life based on defective workmanship. The choice we make about these contrasting paths will determine whether we remain a moral society committed to the pursuit of universal human rights."
posted by Wesley J. Smith at 8:54 AM
2 Comments:
This is a pretty silly comparison. For one thing, you are comparing completely different modes of writing. Barnes is writing about his personal experience, Singer is writing moral philosophy. The latter is going to inevitably be more abstract and "bloodless". To oppose Singer for this reason is to oppose reason itself.
Second, there is no real conflict between the two except in tone. Singer, at least from what you've excerpted, seems to believe in leaving the choice (of whether to give birth to a child with genetic defects) up to the parents involved. So does Barnes, who says "I am not here to make judgments on those who have gone for termination, being unwilling to cope with something that they could not imagine." So, both are in favor of parental choice.
Third, I just yesterday cited the example of Michael Berube, a writer who is both the loving father of a Down's child, AND a liberal pro-choice academic philosopher. This is a further demonstration these are not incompatible. It is very tricky to balance reason and emotion on these subjects, but I'd say that he walks the line with style, grace, and insight.
Fourth, I'm sure you have read more of Singer's writings than I have but nothing I have read seen justifies saying things like "it is striking how often he writes of satisfying personal desires and how rarely he writes of sacrifice and love." You imply like he has some sort of philosophy of individualistic hedonism, when in it is almost the exact opposite -- utilitarianism seems to call for everyone to pool their well-being for the benefit of all. He talks a good deal about the obligation of the strong to help the weak, although of course he has a different definition of what this means than you. I don't happen to buy all that much of his worldview myself, (I also find it somewhat bloodless and abstract, and even worse unworkable), but I don't think it's based on selfishness at all.
If Singer's ideas are so terrible it ought to be possible to argue against them without resorting to smears or pure plays to emotion.
I think the contrast is stark and important and worth making. I also think Singer is an amoral utilitarian who, in his philosophy (as opposed to his personal life) cares little for what makes us truly human. He has written, for example, that it could be acceptable to sacrifice the life of a "brain damaged human" in experiments to save several lives. (Animal Liberation, p. 85.) You see, Singer doesn't believe in rights, including the right to life. He believes in utilitarian interests. That which serves the interests of the most should prevail, even at the expense of the interests of the few.
My primary point in writing about Barnes is to show there is another way than eugenic abortion, or Singer's support for infanticide. And that is based on love.
Post a Comment
<< Home