Peter Singer: Infanticide, Yes; Kangaroo Cull, No
Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer is famous for two primary reasons: First, he jump started the animal rights/liberation movement with his 1975 book Animal Liberation. Second, he is the world's foremost proponent of the legitimacy of infanticide. Thus, writing on page 186 in Practical Ethics, he supported the right of parents to kill a newborn with hemophilia in order to make life easier for a hypothetical, yet-to-be-born sibling:
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 higher 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 hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.It should be noted that the disability of the infant isn't why he can be killed, but rather, his view that infants are not persons.Cut to Australia where an overpopulation of kangaroos threatens the animals with starvation. The government is proposing a cull. But Singer opposes. From the story:
Professor Singer, whose 1975 book Animal Liberation spawned the modern animal rights movement, is one of the world's best-known and most controversial thinkers on animal rights. He said the cull did not seem to be necessary. "We need some form of fertility control to deal with these situations," the Princeton University bioethics professor told the Canberra TimesThe thing is, Singer doesn't believe in either human rights or animal rights. He is a utilitarian who believes what should and should not be done must be based on whether the outcome would promote satisfaction of preferences or interests, or be detrimental to those goals. He broke out of the crowd because he asserted that in taking such utilitarian measurements, the interests of animals deserve equal consideration with the interests of people.
With the kangaroos, Singer apparently weighed the suffering in the animals that would be caused by the cull and that of potential starvation, and believed the cull would cause more suffering and hence should not be done. But if the happiness were increased with the cull, he would support it--as he did experimenting on monkeys last year.
You see, for Singer, principles of right and wrong make no sense. We follow Peter Singer at great peril to human rights and the well being of the weak and vulnerable among us.
Labels: Peter Singer. Utilitarianism.