Defending Your Existence
by MikeGeneThis is a long article, but worth the time to read it:
The tragic view comes closest to describing how I now look at Peter Singer. He is a man of unusual gifts, reaching for the heights. He writes that he is trying to create a system of ethics derived from fact and reason, that largely throws off the perspectives of religion, place, family, tribe, community and maybe even species — to "take the point of view of the universe." His is a grand, heroic undertaking.
But like the protagonist in a classical drama, Singer has his flaw. It is his unexamined assumption that disabled people are inherently "worse off," that we ''suffer," that we have lesser "prospects of a happy life." Because of this all-too-common prejudice, and his rare courage in taking it to its logical conclusion, catastrophe looms. Here in the midpoint of the play, I can't look at him without fellow-feeling.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
"Courage"?!?! Singer has never had the courage to follow his own logical conclusions.
Although he determined that his own mother's alzheimers made her life not worth living, he didn't have the courage to follow his own logical conclusions and kill her. It seems there was this thing called 'love' which kept getting in the way of his "logic".
Although Springer's utilitarian "logic" informs him that the marketplace favors white, healthy babies, he advocates killing the "unhealthy" but doesn't have the courage to extend his logic to the "un-white". Springer uses his prejudice as a crutch for his cowardice, not a spearhead for a "grand heroic undertaking".
I can tolerate extreme views if the person is willing to back it up. But Singer apparently thinks that everyone else should be killing their children and their parents and mating with chimps. My guess is that Singer's too much of a coward to ask why his utopian views are disgusting to most people, including himself. If he honestly sought the answer he might actually be able to defend his own existence.
Comment by chunkdz — July 10, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
July 10th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Check it out
Comment by MikeGene — July 10, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
July 10th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Though Singer thinks it's ok to kill a baby with Down Syndrome, he seems unbelievably ignorant about the actual PEOPLE who have Down Syndrome.
What an idiot. .
Comment by chunkdz — July 10, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
July 10th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
From the "unusually gifted" mind of Peter Singer: Rethinking Life And Death, pg.213
Peter Singer, meet Melissa Riggio, songwriter and guitar player.
Peter Singer, meet Brad Silverman from television's "Quantum Leap".
Peter Singer, meet Maria Jesus Pinar Sanz, who teaches foreign languages to children with Down Syndrome.
Peter Singer, meet lots of talented and successful actors.
Peter Singer, meet Brad Hennefer , a talented athlete.
And thank you, Mr. Singer, for attending our Telic Thoughts lecture series. It was well worth your $20,000 speaking fee to learn that people who don't watch Woody Allen movies should be exterminated.
Comment by chunkdz — July 10, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
July 10th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
The OP linked above is a completely emotional response to what is a completely philosophical effort, I personally don't find attempted heart-string tugging to be an effective argument tactic. Singer is simply exploring the question of whether a self consistent morality can be formed by pure reason, that's certainly an interesting experiment and something worth pondering. There have been many failed efforts to justify Christian morality using pure reason but most of those efforts are awkward since they have to work backwards from the conclusion. What conclusion might we reach working the other way? Most moral codes simply come down to speciesism (or nationalism, tribalism, or other in-groupism) which is a hard thing to rationalize.
The place where Singer fails is in trying to claim his ideas fit some notion of personal utility. The notion of using death to enforce a societal utility doesn't seem attractive to anyone (well, maybe the Bush Administration and Nazi Germany, but not to most people) and trying to claim that its in someones personal best interests to be dead is hard to sell when we have such a powerful instinct to survive. Its hard to use happiness as a measure too since there seems to be very little correlation between people's status and their happiness. Rich verse poor, healthy verse sick, we adapt and once adjusted these things don't effect our happiness.
Still I support a person's right to choose not to live. It seems our apparent capacity for consciousness is the only property that makes us something that should be treated differently than a tree or a rock; I don't buy theistic arguments for the primacy of man. This raises genuine issues concerning severely mentally disabled people who do not have a capacity for consciousness, or even just a capacity to choose anything. So while I would violently oppose any effort to mandate euthanasia under any circumstances I would support the rights of the individual or their legal guardians to make that difficult choice.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 10, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
July 10th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
You can never get from an "is" to an "ought" through reason alone. Singer is no different and his "oughts" are merely a product of his desire. God help us if people like him get enough power to enforce their will.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 10, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
July 10th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Todd Berkebile wrote:
There's nothing really interesting about it since the modern version of it was expressed by the Marquis de Sade over two centuries ago. His morality was more self consistent than Singer's, though, since he actually practiced what he preached.
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 10, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 6:05 am
“I have lived in blissful ignorance all these years, and I'm not prepared to give that up today."
If a single sentence sums up Harriet Johnson, it’s this one. That and the slander and falsehoods that her “blissful ignorance” leads her to.
Harriet, “you” were never a baby. I’m using “you” to refer to your consciousness, your awareness, your personality. The reason you have trouble wrapping your head around Prof. Singer’s tight string of syllogisms is because you haven’t wrapped your head around this one essential fact.
You were not there when Harriet Johnson was born. You did not exist. You didn’t even begin to exist as a person – that is, a being that is capable of consciousness and thought, until well after birth. If infant Harriet had been euthanized at birth, you would never have developed, therefore you would never have existed to regret not existing. As far as you are concerned, it would be exactly as if your mother had had a headache on the night you were conceived – you would never have existed and you would be incapable of caring about it.
Now, let’s cover some of your ah… misunderstandings. First of all, you say that you aren’t worse off for having whatever congenital condition has warped your body and restricted yourself to a wheel chair? Fine, then you should have no objection to someone taking a healthy baby and giving it a poison that warps its body and confines it to a wheel chair, right? Oh, you do? Why, if they’re not worse off? Because they ARE worse off, that’s why.
But that’s minor compared to your constant equivocation when you talk about things like, “…facilitating the suicides of ill and disabled people.” An “ill” person is someone who is sick. My aunt was sick. Very sick, with liver cancer. She first knew she was ill when she got stabbing pains in her side. The pains got worse and worse as her skin and eyes gradually turned orange from the poisons that were filling up her bloodstream. The pain got so bad that morphine wouldn’t stop it. She was in agony for months until the poisons in her blood finally eroded her brain into unconsciousness and finally, blessed death. (And by that time, death WAS a blessing.) I don’t want to go through that. I’d rather die. A man I know and like has just found out that he’s sick. He’s got cancer of the esophagus. You can imagine the choking death he’s got in store for him. He doesn’t want to go through that kind of death. He’s hoarding sleeping pills. So will I if I’m ever in his position. Those are the kind of “ill” people Professor Singer wants to be able to legally kill themselves, with assistance if they need it. Do you even give a damn?
A “disabled” person is a PERSON who is “crippled, injured, or incapacitated.” My uncle John lost most of his right hand in an industrial accident. He was disabled. Two friends are dying in slow motion from multiple sclerosis. They are badly disabled (ill, too). One still gets around on his own, the other is starting to use a wheel chair. I passed a man coming out of the supermarket yesterday who was missing a hand. He was disabled. “Disabled” is a word that covers hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans and many more people, world wide. You accuse Professor Singer of wanting to kill all of those people. I guess you’re not lying, you’re just in “blissful ignorance” and too bad if that ignorance results in your defaming a decent person.
The newborns that Professor Singer is talking about aren’t even “persons”, let alone “disabled persons”. A “person” is something with a mind – something that is conscious and can think. You are a person. My disabled friends and relatives are persons. The man at the supermarket is a person. NEWBORNS ARE NOT PERSONS! Humans are born prematurely, as soon as their lungs can support life. Their brains are barely half developed. They cannot think. They are not self-conscious. They will become persons, gradually, if you let them and they are able, but they are not persons at birth, any more than they were persons when they were conceived. But you’re blissfully ignorant of that.
A large chunk of Terry Schaivo’s brain was just flat gone. It died from lack of oxygen when her heart stopped from a heart attack and when they got her heart started again, all of her higher abilities, such as consciousness were gone with it. The information that made her Terry Schaivo died with that brain tissue. She was gone forever, yet you and your ilk forced her husband to keep her mindless body alive for fifteen years. Well, at least she was beyond conscious suffering by that time. I’ve made out a living will in case I’m ever in that condition. Will you try to block it?
Your whole article is a tissue of “blissful ignorance” that results in your “accidently” committing gross slander of decent people while posing as a victim yourself. And if you’re successful, you may condemn me and millions of others to a hellish death. Shame on you.
chunkdz: Why do you equate "unhealthy" with "non-white"? Do you believe that it's unhealthy to be non-white? Regarding Down's syndrome, would you give a healthy baby a poison that gave it Down's syndrome?
Comment by CeilingCat — July 11, 2008 @ 6:05 am
July 11th, 2008 at 9:20 am
cc:
Newborns are indeed 'persons' under the law. Dependent persons, but persons nonetheless. If you don't want your baby and forgot to abort it, give it to someone who does.
Our society considers infanticide to be murder. This of course doesn't mean infants aren't killed, sometimes by their doctors (Texas has a strong policy on this if their version of Medicaid is involved). Teenagers and adults quite often kill themselves too, for any number of reasons. While it's societally frowned-upon, there's not much punishment the courts can enact against a dead person, so that issue is fairly moot. Again, our medical and court systems do recognize people's own 'right to die' and other people's 'right' to kill them. Happens all the time. Nobody needs Singer's twisted 'vision' except Singer (it's his claim to fame). The rest of us will live and die pretty much as we always have, still believing in the intrinsic value of human life. That is our right too.
Moderation Note: You may wish to consider the fact that TT is NOT the Swamp and it's not PZ's happy little Hate-Fest. You see a couple of critical blurbs about Johnson's article right here in this thread that make actual points without attacking her personally. It is obvious that you agree with Singer, and are not disturbed by his inconsistency or hypocrisy. Fine. You may wish to tone down the bile a bit, you'll last longer.
Comment by Joy — July 11, 2008 @ 9:20 am
July 11th, 2008 at 10:44 am
CeilingCat,
Would you mind bolding your caps lock when you scream?
I hear it makes an assertion that more convincing.
Comment by Doug — July 11, 2008 @ 10:44 am
July 11th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Wow. You pinpointed the location of consciousness. Nice work, Ceilingcat.
So her physical form played no role in transmitting information regarding who Terry actually was? Clever.
And you and your ilk wanted her dead to make statement.
Also, from your perspective, wasn't her body mindless to begin with?
Yes, because you determined that consciousness was solely reducible to the area of her brain that had been damaged. Alleviating any guilt that might have been felt when she was starving…. because she wasn't conscious to know what was even going on.
Did Terry have a living will that specified how this should have been handled? If not, why are you bringing in an example where one would have a living will that does specify how events should proceed?
Comment by Doug — July 11, 2008 @ 10:55 am
July 11th, 2008 at 11:09 am
cieling cat
I don't, no, and no.
Now if you wouldn't mind answering one of my questions, and since you seem to agree with Singer's position:
Why do you suppose Singer is willing to advocate the killing of babies with Down Syndrome even as he demonstrates utter ignorance about the very people he desires to exterminate?
In other words, since none of Singer's assertions about people with Down Syndrome are actually true, then why is he qualified to make a life or death judgement about these same people that he is obviously making prejudiced and false judgements about?
Blissful ignorance indeed. Except Singer is actually influencing a lot of young minds.
Comment by chunkdz — July 11, 2008 @ 11:09 am
July 11th, 2008 at 11:24 am
So is slander the only response to Singer then? It seems to be all you and Harriet have to offer. I suspect you know nothing of the philosophies of either Signer or the Marquis de Sade you you would not have attempted such a ludicrously incorrect comparison.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 11, 2008 @ 11:24 am
July 11th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Doug to cc:
Actually, here's another inconsistency in Singer's 'vision'. He says parents should have the right to keep disabled children alive, and Shiavo's parents spent years in court attempting to do that very thing despite the fact that her erstwhile husband wanted her dead. Maybe for him, once you're an adult others can kill you at will. Thus parents can keep a baby with Downs Syndrome, but once that child becomes an adult Singer & Co. can euthanize 'em because sharing a world with the less-than Barbie/Ken is too uncomfortable.
Starving isn't so bad, it's the dehydration that's hard suffering. If you dehydrate your dog to death you'll go to jail. But if it's just a human infant or adult, it's no big deal. My Mom who was dying of COPD some years ago fell putting on her pajamas and broke her hip, femur, both wrists and her back in 3 places (osteoporosis). While the doctors gladly gave her a fine new hip (Medicare pays for that), they wouldn't treat anything else.
She had a Living Will and no-rescussitation order on file, but was very strict about no one killing her outright. So she stopped eating, just drank fluids. Her mind was fine, her body was just done. Her decision, we respected it (though I did tell her I couldn't stay to watch it, she understood). She died in a mere 6 weeks, I'm sure Terry Shiavo's husband could have waited that long if he'd ever really loved her in the first place. Why the hurry?
People DO allow disabled infants to die. Doctors often kill them by neglect even if the parents don't agree. People DO kill themselves when they're older too, and there's not much anybody can do about it. The heart of these issues is whether society should allow the active killing of humans it doesn't like or want. And no matter what Singer or his fans say, that's precisely what the slope leads to.
Comment by Joy — July 11, 2008 @ 11:25 am
July 11th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Joy,
Check out the second link I provided above. Singer wants the State to decide who lives and who dies:
IMO, he is political advocate with an agenda masquerading as a scholar.
Comment by MikeGene — July 11, 2008 @ 11:37 am
July 11th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Todd Berkebile,
Stop for a moment, and listen to the philosopher speak…
Pure reason? Not only is he plainly wrong, but he expects that this judgement can be made within the first 12 months of life.
"Pure reason", Todd? Are you joking, or do you really want to continue to mount the defense for this philosophical hack?
Comment by chunkdz — July 11, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Todd Berkebile wrote:
How is what I wrote slanderous?
Seeing that you claim to know more about Sade's philosophy than I do, what is objectionable about it? It is the most natural philosophy ever conceived, and confirms that we are indeed animals (as Darwin's science supports with overwhelming evidence) and need not construct a stupid, inhibitive morality based on millennia-old books written by doddering, superstitious fools.
Only logic and reason need to be our guides to more fulfilling lives - that is, for those of us with a strong enough will to dominate and seize it. Those who do not have logic, reason, and strong wills - i.e., the weak and stupid - do not deserve to reap the benefits from them, do they?
Read your Beauvoir and rid yourself of the rags of Christianity that you so desperately cling to, along with its love of weaklings and slavery to inhibition. Be free. Be strong.
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 11, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
CeilingCat, “blissfully unaware” does not sum up Ms. McBryde Johnson’s views at all. She does not care to know why Singer values animal life over her own. The mere thought is so disturbing to her that she prefers not to hear him out. Here is an excerpt from the article starting with Singer speaking.
He asks what I thought of the students' questions.
"They were fine, about what I expected. I was a little surprised by the question about meat eating."
"I apologize for that. That was out of left field. But — I think what he wanted to know is how you can have such high respect for human life and so little respect for animal life.'
"People have lately been asking me the converse, how you can have so much respect for animal life and so little respect for human life."
"And what do you answer?"
"I say I don't know. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me."
"Well, in my view–'
"Look. I have lived in blissful ignorance all these years, and I'm not prepared to give that up today."
"Fair enough," he says and proceeds to recount bits of Princeton history.
She is not blissfully unaware at all of the implications of Singer’s views if they were to be implemented in our world. What a courageous and eloquent woman she is! She faces up graciously to someone whose thinking she abhors. She even admits that Singer treated her very well and made her comfortable during her stay at Princeton. She does not slander Singer she goes out of her way to explain that a part of her doesn’t hate him, that he is “human” and even “kind”. My opinion is that not even Singer himself would say that she slandered him. Defend him if you must, but ugh! I agree with Mike Gene.
Comment by interested bystander — July 11, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
You seem to be confusing his intentions with his success or failure. As I mentioned above, I think his philosophy fails in at least two of its core axioms. You are mistakenly assuming I support his views just because I support the attempt to derive morality from reason.
Sorry, I didn't realize you consider calling someone a sadist to be a compliment.
Sade was a criminally insane lunatic who advocated radical freedom completely unrestrained by morality. What isn't objectionable about that?
According to who? Singer doesn't claim that. Darwin didn't claim that. I don't claim that. What strawman villain are you attacking?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 11, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I think you are projecting negative views onto Signer. Lets look at what these statements you have bolded mean:
If the legal guardian makes a decision it should be honored but not to such an extreme that it overrides the doctor's ethical responsibility. So, for example, if the family decides they want to stone the sick person to death the doctor would have a responsibility to ignore that request.
How much money should the government spend to keep someone with no hope of recovery alive? Obviously the answer isn't "all the money they have." With modern science you could chop someones head off and still keep the body alive for years, should the government pay for that? This in no way is avocation for the government murdering people against the patient or guardian's wishes but is simply an obvious point that some reasonable limit should exist.
This seems completely in line with current laws regarding the granting of guardianship. All he's doing is acknowledging existing legislation. As in the first point, he's saying that guardianship doesn't override the doctors' ethical responsibility so the court taking over guardianship doesn't change the options that would be available to the doctors.
This seems obvious. The legal guardian is free to spend their own money however they like and religious groups are free to gather funds to support treatment for hopeless patients but government funds must be spent according to commonly accepted community standards.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 11, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Todd B,
Sorry, this is rather weak as an explanation of the quote. Singer's "ethical responsibility" here is not "you do not have the right to stone a sick person a death". It's rather coming down on the side of a responsibility to kill.
Singer isn't making a monetary argument here, or if he is he's doing a good job of downplaying it. He's referencing "professional judgment of patient's best interests". If Singer was arguing 'look, clearly it would be better if we could provide support for these things, but we need to establish limits due to the realities of budget', this would be going down differently. He's not.
He's saying that the children can be granted custody if they can convince the court that they have more of a right to deciding the fate of their father than the state. Which itself is reasonable, until you realize what Singer's judgment of the state's duties and ethical responsibilities to the impaired are.
No, the legal guardian isn't automatically free to do that - hence having to convince the hospital / court / state. Again, state oversight of such things can be argued reasonably, but this takes on a special aspect considering what Singer advocates should be considered as an ethical responsibility and the authority of state.
Comment by nullasalus — July 11, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Todd,
I didn't say you supported his views. I said you were defending him.
This is not about whether his "pure reason" approach fails or succeeds, Todd. Springer never bothered to use reason because that would have mucked up his conclusion. It's about prejudice being the basis for his entire inquiry. Springer decided that Down Syndrome should be a tag for extermination without even the most basic understanding of what it means to live with Down's. Consequently his assertions fly brazenly contrary to reason.
It took me less than five minutes to find counterexamples to each of his claims about Down Syndrome. I did a search for "down syndrome guitar player", then I did a search for "down syndrome foreign language", etc. etc. And I ain't even no philosopher!
You can call that a failure of his "pure reason" approach. I call it a failure of his bigotted approach, since reason was never even part of his decision.
Am I wrong to expect a professor from a major university who commands a $20,000 honorarium to spend 5 minutes googling to see if his prejudices are justified? I think so. Even more so if he's running on the "pure reason" platform.
Comment by chunkdz — July 11, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
That interpretation doesn't seem to follow from the provided quote. Where does he ever say that death should be required, mandated, or encouraged? Rather he simply says it should be an option.
In this specific example he is clearly talking about costs. Are you suggesting that he cannot discuss costs because in other cases he talks about different things? It seems critics want to boil him down to a single point by clinging to the most radical points he has ever hinted at rather that seeing his comments as discussions of a whole continuum of different situations.
So even if Signer says something reasonable its apparently objectionable because of your assumptions about his motives? This is my main point, people are arguing against an imaginary strawman projected from what they assume Singer's ultimate goals are (or where they lead) rather than attacking Singer's actual position. In my view his actual position has enough flaws without resorting to attacking a strawman.
I guess I'm just not aware of anyplace where Signer has ever suggested guardianship should be revoked simply so that someone can be killed. These quotes certainly don't seem to say that. They seem to indicate that the guardian should have their wishes upheld unless doing so is unethical. That statement isn't controversial, the only controversial part is that he considers euthanasia an ethical recourse in many situations where many people disagree. Maybe he makes more provocative statements somewhere, can anyone provide a quote where he mentions conditions where it is unethical to remain alive?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 11, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Todd B.:
Since when is it a doctor's "ethical responsibility" to kill patients? What group of lobbyists, legislators, regulatory agencies and doctor's professional associations determined this? Where is it written - Act, Title and Statutes please. If you're telling the truth, people definitely ought to know about it!
If the patient is judged "hopeless" by his doctors and their administrators, they can withdraw treatment. They cannot kill him, because that is murder. Perhaps you weren't paying attention to what happened in New Orleans when the Bush Administration left them drowning for 5 days after Katrina. No one was there to evacuate the critical patients, though the doctors and nurses were with them on the helipad, waiting. When at last evac came, it wasn't for patients, just the doctors and nurses. So they killed patients.
I don't think anyone will end up in prison for it (should they have left the patients alone to die?), they were OUT of food and water, had no more electricity, and might have stayed to hold their hands but chose to go back to their own families. A desperate and dire situation that never should have come to pass, but it did. They broke the law. That law has NOT been changed.
For the man in Canada, his family should be allowed to take him home to die, care for him as best they can. The doctors have no reason or right to kill him, and it is not in the state's interest to force them to do so and call it "ethical." What they CAN do is give him a 'scrip for morphine, then wash their hands of him.
Unless your name is Kavorkian (and I seem to recall that he's in jail), it's not your job to kill anybody, even if you're a doctor. That you'd come in here pretending that this has already been established, legalized and blessed with "ethical" status is downright weird. Do your homework.
Comment by Joy — July 11, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Todd Berkebile wrote
A term invented by those vile God-botherers who slander Sade is unrelated to the coherent philosophy put forth by Sade. I ask again, how can you possibly think what I said was slanderous? Unless you're one of those God-botherers.
Ah, so you admit not knowing what Sade's philosophy truly was by using labels that have no meaning outside of the slave morality which gave birth to them.
There really is no such thing as "crime" so there can be no such thing as "criminals". There are only made-up laws to restrain the strong from dominating the weak, thus ruining the natural order of things.
There is no such thing as insanity because there is no objective sanity - there is only coherence and incoherence, and Sade was very coherent… much more coherent than you or Singer.
As for "lunatic", what a laughably superstitious, anachronistic word! And redundant too. Do you always repeat yourself when you can't adequately defend your position?
You wrote that you think the prospect of founding a morality based strictly on logic and reason is interesting and should be explored. My reply was, in essence, it's been done and done a long time ago by smarter people than you, or Singer, or Darwin, so it's not really all that interesting.
You didn't like the person I mentioned, because you are ignorant of what he truly had to say. You only know that his behavior was abhorrent, which is definitely true. It was especially abhorrent to those who had lived in cultures steeped in the Christian religion.
These cultures had gotten accustomed to silly, artificial ideas like the sanctity of human life, the uniqueness of human consciousness, caring for the weak and vulnerable, and other hogwash that holds humanity back from its evolutionary potential.
Darwin told us that sex, cruelty, and death are the mechanisms by which animals change into better animals. A century before him, Sade told us that sex, cruelty, and death should be embraced by mankind because they are natural, and nature can never be wrong.
Singer tells us that death is a mechanism that can make us happier as a society and a species. Over two centuries before him, Sade told us the same thing.
You ostracize Sade, but praise Singer and Darwin.
Sade is the master of all three of you.
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 11, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Todd B,
An option that the doctor, acting as an agent of the state, would have default authority regarding - and which Singer further argues entails ethical commitments to kill. That clearly comes down under "required, mandated, encouraged".
If you're referring to what MikeGene quoted, he doesn't mention costs once - he only mentions the health care system is publicly funded. He talks entirely about ethical decisions for the patient.
If he was talking about costs, he'd have more of a case: He could argue that while a given treatment may be desirable, even ideal, there is a question of efficiency when it comes to such spending. But an efficiency argument doesn't do what it needs to for Singer, because costs change (treatments become more effective, less expensive, etc). His whole argument would be reduced to budget concerns, which would be at the mercy of state and populace ethical views. Which is why Singer argues on the ethics trump itself.
Also, 'radical points he ever hinted at'? Singer doesn't hint. He may be contradictory and using some daft reasoning, but he hasn't been too shy about saying where his conclusions can and do lead.
And I see you as defending a fantasy version of Singer. I made no strawman argument - I said outright that the state reasonably has an interest in determining the ethicality of a guardian's desire in a case like this. The problem - the issue itself - is what Singer thinks should be not just intellectually preferred ethics, but default ethics enforced by the state. You're trying to attribute a cost efficiency argument to Singer that he isn't making here.
I have no need to attack a strawman when you yourself say his reasoning fails, and the guy explicitly condones infanticide and otherwise.
Singer is arguing that guardianship can and in some cases should be trumped by the state owing to ethics - his ethics, which is the focus of concern. No, Singer isn't arguing against the right of guardians to get custody of patients in order to stone them to death (and you complain of strawmen?). He's arguing in favor of a state's authority to not only deem that a patient should die, but that the wishes of their guardians that they live be trumped due to state-enshrined ethics.
You want to know if Singer has mentioned conditions where it would be unethical to let someone live? It's right in what MikeGene quoted.
But establishing their father’s awareness could be a double-edged sword, since it could also mean that keeping him alive is pointless torture, and it is in his best interest to be allowed to die peacefully.
"Allowed to die peacefully" meaning, of course, killed. And, even putting aside infanticide, in what situations does Singer think having someone offed would be the most ethical decision? Given the case of his mother, "Alzheimer's" is on the list.
The guy advocates a bizarrely Logan's Run style society.
Comment by nullasalus — July 11, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
angryoldfatman:
How ironic coming from a member of the death cult called Christianity. Worshiping instruments of torture upon which their mythical hero was murdered for the benefit of mankind.
Who are you to deny others a painless death at the moment of their choosing? Must we all suffer like your imaginary friend Jesus?
Comment by Raevmo — July 11, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Ah, so you claim that without god one cannot have morality. Without god we'd all be killing babies for sport in your little fantasy nightmare world. Sorry, I think this is absurd, humans created every notion recorded in your religious texts all on their own. Many people on this forum claim they have rational basis for being Christian, do you think they are misguided? Yet you apparently consider the notion of a rational basis for being moral (a much weaker claim) to be absurd? Also you seem to be claiming that I can only talk about Sade using the language Sade would use to describe himself, this is obviously absurd theatrics.
Obviously you think these previous efforts have all failed, so you are claiming what, that we should just give up now and embrace god because previous failure guarantees future failure? That kind of "just give up" thinking is exactly why I dislike religious viewpoints. They are so confident that they already know all the answers that they consider it a waste of time to keep searching.
He also told us that humans were supreme because we raised above these brutal limits of the animal kingdom.
Nature is neither right nor wrong, it just is. Plus love, social bonding and altruism are natural just like sex, cruelty, and death. Even simple self interest tells us the value of social contracts. Reason easily shows the faults in Sade's world view.
Sade cared only for his own happiness, Singer attempts to define a universally applicable morality. I think he fails, but the message could not be more different from Sade.
Actually I ostracize Sade, point out that Singer's philosophy is wrong and flawed even though by all accounts he is a decent person, and praise Darwin. But two out of three ain't bad.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 11, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Raevmo is raevmoing! I wonder if social autism is a snuff-worthy impairment under Singer's philosophy?
What's being argued is state authority to decide who should live and die, to the point of trumping wishes of family or otherwise.
Hey Raevmo, if you ever reproduced and found the offspring inconvenient, would you suffocate said infant at age 3 days old if it were legal? Would you consider it immoral to do so?
Comment by nullasalus — July 11, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
I don't trust the state to patch a pot hole without bollixing the job, so I certainly don't trust the state to decide medical matters. I simply support the legal guardian's authority to make that decision. In a perfect world the state would never be any one's legal guardian, but in cases where they are given guardianship they should be required to follow guidelines agreed upon by the community. The state should always be restricted to acting only in those ways the community empowers it to act. Its not that I refuse to believe Signer might want to go far beyond this, its just I don't read the linked quotes as suggesting this. Perhaps if I was more familiar with his works I'd be in the "burn the witch" line with everyone else.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 11, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
nullasalus:
I wouldn't know, but I'm glad the days are over where the representatives of your beloved church wouldn't have thought twice about snuffing the likes of me out for "social autism", or for, say, holding the Eucharist hostage.
I would have thought many on this blog support the state's authority to condemn people to death. How many are on death row in the USA today?
Inconvenient huh? You know very well that nobody advocates euthanasia out of convenience. A little lie to cover up your medieval morals. No surprise there. But to answer your question, if it were nearly certain that the infant would have a future of suffering and pain, surely I would wish to end its life in a painless manner (rather than by your method of suffocating it), preferably assisted by some competent medical personal. Luckily, this practice is already allowed to some extent in my neck of the woods.
Comment by Raevmo — July 11, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Raevmo,
Yes, what a grand legacy you have to claim as yours - deaths of tens of millions for the cause of secular glory, eugenics movement, guys like Sam Harris muttering about the justification of killing people for having "dangerous beliefs". All thanks to the kind of rationality that has PZ Myers ranting and raving about all the nasty, evil things he's going to do to what he clearly thinks is a cracker, so long as someone is willing to steal it for him. (I suppose he can't do the dirty work himself, eh?)
I'll take my moral standards over yours any day of the week. I'm assuming you actually have some.
I myself have strong reservations about the death penalty. Naturally, criminal punishment isn't the subject - it's almost as if you feel uncomfortable discussing this. Wouldn't be the first time you tried to cut and run.
Raevmo, are you even familiar with Peter Singer's views on abortion or infanticide? He holds that infants have as much right to life as fetuses: Zero. His sole 'out' is that he thinks most who don't want a child will have an abortion before it reaches what I suppose is 'true infancy', but that doesn't matter to the philosophy. The parent can have interests - the child, at that age, cannot. If the child is not wanted by the parents, said child can be snuffed. They don't need a good reason.
Call me a liar without basis, then say you'll answer my question - only to rewrite it.
I'll repeat: If you ever reproduced and found the offspring inconvenient - if you decided you did not want to raise and care for that infant - would you suffocate it at 3 days old? Would you consider it immoral to do so?
You won't answer. And I'll be as blunt as you: Because you don't have the balls to answer.
Yes, we all stand in awe at your progressive infant-snuffing standards. Maybe you can drum up another Singer support: strike up a relationship with a golden retriever and brag about it here. You know, rub our noses in how progressive and superior you are, what with the lover who can fetch newspapers.
Comment by nullasalus — July 11, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Todd B,
I'm not in any 'burn the witch' line. I think his views are repugnant and clearly flawed - the only action I'd like to see taken is less people endorsing his views, and certainly no application of them within the authority of state.
Comment by nullasalus — July 11, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Raevmo,
Wrong again, Raevmo. Singer says it's ok to kill babies with Down's Syndrome, which means that he would have supported the execution of the talented and beloved American actor Chris Burke.
There's such a thing as being such an open society that your morals fall out.
Comment by chunkdz — July 11, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Nullasalus:
You know, rub our noses in how progressive and superior you are, what with the lover who can fetch newspapers.
Hah hah hah!
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 11, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
nullasalus:
Those numbers pale in comparison to the numbers killed by Catholics and other Christians, so what's your point? Within 10 years of conquering South America tens of millions of natives had been wiped out by your Catholic buddies. That's just for starters. You can't win the numbers game.
You think the cracker is actually Jesus? Did PZ deserve death threats for his ridicule?
Likewise, my friend.
Is that really what Singer advocates?
Macho. Yes, I would consider that immoral.
Do you consider it immoral to assist a terminal cancer patient in ending her own life?
Comment by Raevmo — July 11, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
One can glean the irrationality of New Attheism by statements like this. When historians discuss brutailities commtted by the Romans do they attribute this to Jupiter or the polytheistic religion of the Romans? Is the infanticide in Sparta attributed to Zeus? Mass murder in the Soviet Union and Cambodia to atheism? Modern day terrorism to Islam (how politically incorrect)? But the New World- not Spain or England. No that was Christianity.
Comment by Bradford — July 11, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
chunkdz:
Execution of retards is par for the course in the USA. Why don't you do something about that? And is the actor Chris Burke a baby with Down's syndrome? I don't think so. But I tend to agree with Singer that it's ok for parents to have the right to kill their babies if they have Down's syndrome.
Please expand on that, I don't see how openness conflicts with morality.
Yes, we allow euthanasia over here, but you might also consider that the murder rates and abortion rates are far lower over here than in the USA.
Comment by Raevmo — July 11, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Bradford:
Thanks for making my point for me. Blaming mass murder in the USSR to atheism is standard practice here. Nullasalus just did it. I didn't realize he was a New Attheist.
Comment by Raevmo — July 11, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Raevmo:
Take a closer look at your analysis. Atheism was official governmental policy of Communist regimes like the Soviet Union. OTOH, most governments in most nations are not theocracies. The Pope does not govern Catholic France or Spain. Secular authority figures do.
Comment by Bradford — July 11, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Bradford:
Catholicism was official state religion too. If you can blame atheism for the murders in the USSR, I can blame Catholicism for the murders by the Spanish. And so on.
Comment by Raevmo — July 11, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Raevmo:
You can blame willy nilly but that does not lend credibility to your blame game. What needs to be done is to make a historic analysis as to the whos and whys of an event or series of events. But that would require objective sifting of the facts by you. You have demonstrated an aversion to that type of approach.
Comment by Bradford — July 11, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Bradford:
No I haven't. On the contrary, it's you who has an aversion to objective analysis. You have made up your mind. You know Who created the first cell. No amount of evidence can sway you.
Comment by Raevmo — July 11, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Raevmo,
Are you honestly going to compare what went on with smallpox and other illnesses with Mao starving out millions on purpose in order to pick up weapons for the state? Secular interests are a bigger threat to life than any religion with the possible exception of the Molech and Aztec varieties - and even then I'd have to wonder.
I will admit to the crimes of the Catholic Church, and any other religious or secular leadership, readily - though I may argue on particular details. I do not pretend they were perfect, just like I won't pretend my country is perfect. The moment explicitly anti-theistic regimes came on the scene (even 'Enlightenment'-fueled once like in France), they proved they were every bit as bloody as the worst religious excess, and moreso.
I don't think it's a cracker - I'm fine with transubstantiation, as well as utterly understanding others' lack of belief in it. Does PZ deserve death threats? Absolutely not. Few people do - in today's society, you can get death threats for everything from advocating ID to not performing well enough at a big professional sports game.
Singer does not say 'Hey parents, you should really kill your kids'. Singer believes an infant, just like a fetus, has no personhood. No human rights. Nyet. There are no interests of it to consider. That's his picture of human rights.
You know, Raevmo, I'd keep the tone polite if you'd make an effort to. I didn't snarl at Todd over this discussion, and I see no reason to do so with you. Ditch the soapbox and PZ Myers antics and we can ditch the posturing.
Depends on a few things. Is her personal desire unknown? If yes, I'd say it's immoral. Does she have no guardians to speak for her? If no, I'd say it's immoral. I favor a default view of 'protect her life within reasonable efforts'.
What does 'assist' mean? Injecting her with something to out and out kill her? I'd personally reject that. Suspending excessive treatment and focusing on letting her spend her last days in as much comfort as possible? I can't argue with this.
When did I attribute the USSR's mass deaths to atheism, Raevmo? I said the 'cause of secular glory'. Certainly the atheistic, 'enlightened' regimes had a grimly amusing track record. Certainly their philosophies were atheistic and justified a whole lot of brutality, particularly where religion came into play. But I recognize a complicated subject when I see one.
I do think that between Lysenkoism, The Reign of Terror, Communism and otherwise, all claims that atheism or anti-theism is an essential ingredient to a better, more moral society is laughable. Peter Singer's philosophical ideas are just one more item on that particular pile. Oh boy, infanticide, bestiality, and brutal utilitarianism? Smells like progress to me! Kinda smells like a crematorium too.
Comment by nullasalus — July 11, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
nullasalus:
You know very well that natives were infected on purpose by your Catholic buddies. They were no better than Mao. You say secular interests are a bigger threat. I beg to differ. How many people died needlessly because of the anti-preconception policy of your church? How many people died because George W Bush believed Jesus told him to do something about Saddam? How many people in the Sudan have died because of religious and racist motives? How many in the Congo?
So you think the cracker is Jesus. No offense, but if you can accept that, I have to seriously doubt your ability to analyze evidence.
I asked:
You answered:
Evading. Do you always consider it immoral? Even if she clearly expresses her wish to die?
Yes, that's what I mean with assist. Injecting her with a lethal poison. When she asks for it while of sound mind. Do you object against that? I don't object to medical personnel refusing to help, but I think such personnel should be allowed to assist if they and the terminal patient so wish. Is that immoral?
Comment by Raevmo — July 11, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Poor Raevmo. What does it take to get through to you? All it takes is a chemical process resulting in a replicating, self-sustaining cell to convince me that God could have chosen primordial chemical pathways.
Comment by Bradford — July 11, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Raevmo,
You honestly believe the majority, even most, of those infections were deliberate and purposeful? You live in a fantasy world. You want to go through history and take a look at the number of wars, murders, and otherwise were spurred on by secular desires and interests? Go for it. You really believe we went to war in Iraq because George Bush had a prophetic vision? Idiotic, especially considering Clinton was bombing Iraq during his presidency, and Bush Sr went into the original war with international support, and the Catholic Church has been opposing the damn thing the whole time. Racism != religion - just ask James Watson. How many people have died or gotten ill due to the 'sex however and with whoever you want, marriage or no, no strings attached' advocacy in opposition to the Church?
You're deluded.
This coming from the guy who argued angrily in favor of Peter Singer, until realizing what he actually, you know.. stood for? I could care less what you think of the 'cracker'. I think some other faiths' and faithless practices are ridiculous, but I feel no need to go all angsty teen on them in the hopes of stirring up offense. I'd think Myers was behaving like a jackass in need of employer discipline if he was pulling this with the mormons, the muslims, or even the Raelians. (You know, those atheists.)
Hey, American Indians believe some of their burial grounds are sacred. How about you draw up funds for PZ to go out there and take a dump on one of their skeletons? Because clearly, when someone holds a particular thing to be sacred, reason and rationality demands behaving like a brat.
I haven't evaded - I said outright, if you're talking about a lethal injection, I consider it immoral. I question whether someone can be in a state of sound mind and want to die - what they want is a cure, or comfort. And apparently, if you're in the Netherlands, this view is on the rise.
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - In the Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal but regulated by law, the use of continuous deep sedation for patients near death increased between 2001 and 2005, while the use of euthanasia declined.
Looks like even the Netherlanders are a bit iffy on this "death as a solution" routine. I'm not aware of the specifics so I can't judge it, but opting for sedatives over death strikes me as a step in the right direction.
Comment by nullasalus — July 11, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Oh, I'll just let you do the expanding.
If you think it's ok to kill a baby with all the potential of a Chris Burke or any of the many other people who live happily and productively with Down's, then you have lost the better part of your humanity.
But even in Springer's utilitarian utopia, Burke has generated more utilitarian good and satisfaction of preference than you ever will. So in hindsight, who should have been killed as a baby for the betterment of society- Burke or Raevmo?
Comment by chunkdz — July 11, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
July 13th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
nullasalus wrote:
Just yesterday Tony Snow, a newspaper columnist, a news show moderator, a radio talk show host, a presidential speech writer (Bush #1) a presidential press secretary (Bush #2), lost his fight against cancer. Snow was only 53 years old. It is always tragic when someone with so much potential, talent and accomplishment dies at such an early age. Nevertheless, there is something truly inspiring in the way he died. By all the news accounts he never gave up and never gave in, but kept up a very heroic fight to the very end. Even after the cancer came back again and again, Tony maintained a very positive and upbeat attitude.
So what is morally better? Fighting to hold on to life as Tony did, or just giving up and ending it? In my opinion, being heroic in the face of life’s most serious challenges is a much better example to society at large than just quitting. Of course, if you believe life is devoid of meaning and purpose what I have written is not going to make much sense to you. However, I have a sneaky suspicion that even the cynics out there know what I’m talking about.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 13, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
July 14th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Let me begin this by describing the central fact: if you decide to have a baby or even if you accidentally get pregnant and decide to bring the pregnancy to term, you are engaged in a process that will eventually, if all goes well, produce a living, breathing thinking being. It is your moral responsibility to produce as healthy a human being as you possibly can. This means that everybody should quit smoking, quit doing drugs and quit drinking while pregnant. Additionally, if you can afford it, you have a responsibility to eat well, seek pre-natal medical care and do everything else that is reasonably in your power to produce a healthy baby. In addition, if you find that your baby is not going to be healthy, if you learn that it is going to be physically or mentally deficient in some way that cannot be repaired, then it is your responsibility to have your fetus aborted and either start the process over again or give up. If you don’t live up to your moral responsibility, if you allow a baby to be born that is defective, whether physically or mentally, you bear the exact same guilt as someone who takes a healthy baby and gives it an injection to produce whatever defect the baby you callously allowed to come into existence has.
Joy, the law is way behind the science. Newborns are not persons, defining “person” as “something with consciousness”. Singer is neither inconsistent or a hypocrite. Singer gives responsibility to the parents until marriage, then, like just about everything else in life, responsibility shifts to the spouse. And I agree that starving or dehydrating or just stopping a ventilator is cruel.
Doug: I hope you don’t mind if I highlight a few of the most important points with caps. If we were speaking face to face I’d do it with body language and tone of voice, but in print I’m pretty much restricted to boldface, italics, underlining or all-caps and all-caps is the easiest. The question of consciousness is easy at the beginning of life. If something has never been conscious and hasn’t had anywhere near the amount of time we know is required to create a consciousness, then it’s not conscious and you can be certain of that. It’s an entirely different story at the end of life. There you know that consciousness was once present and you often can’t be completely sure consciousness won’t return. There are records of consciousness returning after years of being in a vegetative state. I have no objections to keeping such people on life support for years. But Terri Schaivo’s case was not one of those. We knew from x-rays years before she was allowed to die that almost all of her cerebral cortex was flat gone. It wasn’t malfunctioning, it didn’t even exist. You don’t recover from that kind of damage. See here (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/03/terri_schiavo.h tml) for x-rays. (Actually, I would have been perfectly fine with declaring Schiavo legally dead so her husband could get on with his life and then turning her body over to her parents to keep alive as long as they wished. It would have been even better if the groups fighting to keep her alive paid the costs involved.) No, Terry didn’t have a living will. Everybody should have one. Even if you want to be kept on a ventilator forever, your best chance of accomplishing that is to have a living will.
Chunkdz : Your statement, “Although Springer's (sic) utilitarian "logic" informs him that the marketplace favors white, healthy babies, he advocates killing the "unhealthy" but doesn't have the courage to extend his logic to the "un-white".” Sure makes you look like you’re equating “unhealthy” with “non-white”. Regarding Down’s syndrome: would you give a healthy baby a shot that did the type of damage that Down’s syndrome does? If not, then how do you justify allowing a Down’s syndrome baby to develop a mind?
Interested bystander: Singer doesn’t value animal life over human. She has a mind now. She’s a being. He values animal life over a mindless newborn human’s. She is blissfully unaware of what Singer really thinks and does not care to find out. She says it would make her feel bad. I don’t really blame her. Nobody wants to find out that they’re dead wrong. You say she doesn’t slander Singer? She calls him “the Evil One”, a euphemism for Satan, says “…they should have run him out of town on a rail” and “He’s advocating genocide.”
Joy: “If the patient is judged "hopeless" by his doctors and their administrators, they can withdraw treatment. They cannot kill him, because that is murder.” So if you’re paralyzed and I stop feeding you, it’s not murder. How about if I lock you in a cell and let you starve to death. Is that murder? Please don’t make us argue your side as well as our own.
Comment by CeilingCat — July 14, 2008 @ 7:06 am
July 14th, 2008 at 7:28 am
ceilingcat
The problem with that definition is that conscious and consciousness are very subjective terms. We have no way of objectively knowing whether anyone or anything else is conscious. Some folks argue that their dogs are conscious or their boats or cars or computers.
On the flip side a person that is sufficiently mentally impaired could be considered to be unconscious.
This can get really scary when you extrapolate to sold out members of cults like the moonies muslins or the new atheists.
Does their blind programmed following of the leader mean that they are not really conscious and can be exterminated for the good of us real conscious humans?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 14, 2008 @ 7:28 am
July 14th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Ceilingcat,
How can you know that such a deficiency 'cannot be repaired' considering we're constantly developing new treatments and cures for ailments that previously there was no hope for? It seems to me that your 'fact' (it's not a 'fact', it's a philosophical view you hold) would ensure we practically bring a halt to research that focuses on helping fetal/infant development and health. After all, what's the need to search for cures or better treatments? Simply snuff the imperfect ones, now and forever. Hey, let's keep the less-than-perfect specimens from breeding while we're at it.
Would your logic demand we snuff out infants who were born with an affliction that meant they may possibly die suddenly in their teens, but there was a possibility they could live to to a ripe old age?
Callously allowed to come into existence. Ah, gotta love the attempt at emotional manipulation.
Will you bear guilt if you snuff out a child for an ailment for which you knew a cure was coming? For which you knew a cure was a future possibility?
You bear the guilt for every infant killed because they were 'imperfect'. Others will bear the guilt for believing that 'imperfect' individuals have a right to live. I'll take the latter over the former any day of the week.
Do you even know the difference between science and philosophy? Singer didn't make any scientific discovery with regard to mental capability. He's redefining personhood and advancing certain philosophical standards. That Singer argues for a measure whereby newborns are not persons (And I've read even 1-2 year olds may not qualify either) does not make this some kind of scientific fact.
And you waltzed in here misrepresenting Singer (And played a maudlin routine, asking if I'd dissect Wall-E), making it sound as if Singer's thoughts on infanticide only apply in extreme cases of infant impairment. Even that question has tremendous problems, but the fact is Singer makes no distinction: An infant who is entirely healthy even by Singer's standards has no right to life. If the parents want to snuff it, they can.
Again, I'll happily take the world where the imperfect humans are protected.
Comment by nullasalus — July 14, 2008 @ 8:39 am
July 14th, 2008 at 9:27 am
cc:
Lovely ideal. Maybe someday society will extend support and medical care to all citizens, as all other civilized nations to, and we'll be somewhere above #42 on the infant and maternal mortality list.
Again, your utopian dream bears very little resemblance to reality. Until and unless all citizens have something so basic as health care, pre-natal testing is reserved for those who do. They don't have nearly as many children as the less well-off. But I suppose you could try to enact strict eugenic laws sterilizing those who fall outside your privilege level, make forced abortions national policy to be decided in smoke-filled rooms by fat old men, and build some nice-looking gas chambers for any 'lesser' humans who manage to get born anyway. You can add your parents to that list too, nobody needs to live more than 65 years (or whenever they'd start getting Social Security/Medicare, whichever comes first). It might not be a happy society, but it would sure be pretty, populated with no one but the good ol' Master Race!
Odd that you'd come here from the Swamp just to lob absurdities, such as your claims to know anything about "moral responsibilities." The world will thank you not to reproduce, my dear. You've no right to tell others whether they can or can't.
You are free to lobby for such draconian eugenics laws. You are not promised that such draconian eugenics laws will ever be considered, get out of committee, be brought to the floor, win the vote, or be signed into law. Them's the breaks.
Hahaha!!! Strange reversion to paternalistic crap there, ceiling cat. I've been married for 40 years and assure you that my body - as well as my womb - still belongs very firmly to ME, not to my husband. I don't think I'd like to live in your utopia. Luckily, I don't have to.
Food and water don't count as medical treatment. Things like kidney dialysis and surgery and drugs (say, insulin for diabetics) are medical treatment. I can have a living will precluding tube feeding, as my mother did. And if I'm outside the privileged system that allows me access to medical care, I've nothing to worry about. Nobody has to stop a treatment that never starts.
I hope that if I am ever in such a position, you won't be the person responsible for making medical decisions for me. If you were that person, I presume you'd do the expedient thing per your vision of "moral responsibility" and just kill me with morphine.
Comment by Joy — July 14, 2008 @ 9:27 am
July 14th, 2008 at 11:18 am
cc,
You ignored my question. Too bad, the answer might help you to critically think about this issue rather than just preach about it.
As for un-white vs. un-healthy, they are merely two market preferences for babies. I don't equate them, but I did note that Singer arbitrarily ignores one of them. Please don't put words in my mouth again.
Comment by chunkdz — July 14, 2008 @ 11:18 am
July 16th, 2008 at 3:25 am
CC: It is your moral responsibility to produce as healthy a human being as you possibly can.”
Joy: “Lovely ideal. Maybe someday society will extend support and medical care to all citizens…”
CC: Yes, that would be lovely. And those citizens’ obligations to produce a healthy baby would be increased considerably.
Joy: “strict eugenic laws”, “sterilizing”, “privilege level”, “forced abortions”, “smoke-filled rooms by fat old men”, “build some nice-looking gas chambers for any ‘lesser’ humans”, “you can add your parents to that list”, “nobody needs to live more than 65 years”, “master race”. “Odd that you'd come here from the Swamp just to lob absurdities, such as your claims to know anything about "moral responsibilities." The world will thank you not to reproduce, my dear. You've no right to tell others whether they can or can't.”
CC: It’s such a pleasure to argue with you. I especially like the way you resist the temptation to abandon the argument when you’re losing and resort