post 11: singer -- abortion, euthanasia, poverty

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 01:13:12

abortion:

simply put, singer is for abortion. by applying his ethical theory that is highly influenced by utilitarianism, singer challenges the premise that a fetus is an innocent human being. singer claims that a fetus is not a human being; he considers the level of rationality, self-consciousness, and awareness, and concludes that a fetus is at the same level as that of nonhuman animals. a fetus, singer claims, has no sense of rationality, no awareness, and is not self-conscious. since a fetus does not have the characteristics of a person, then it cannot claim the rights of being a person. singer also challenges the claim that fetus has the right of a person because it has a potential for life. he claims that although a fetus IS a potential human being, the argument that it is wrong to kill a potential human being is a weak one. again singer claims that having a potential to become a human being does not imply that the fetus can claim the rights of a human being. he also addresses the objection that says that killing a fetus would deprive the world of something that is intrinsically valuable: he argues that contraception and celibacy does the pretty much same thing but are not considered to be morally wrong. singer claims, however, from a utilitarianist standpoint, that the killing of a fetus does cause pain and not pleasure, not to the fetus itself, but to the parents of the fetus. thus, he concludes that if the parents have no objection then abortion does not inflict pain on anyone and ---from a utilitarianist point of view--- is not morally wrong.

euthanasia:

peter singer stands to defend that euthanasia should be justified as an action that is NOT morally incorrect. he addresses three different types of euthanasia: voluntary, one in which the person to be killed requested so because he considers that his life is no longer worth living; involuntary, one in which the person to be killed is killed against his will to go on living or is killed prior to being asked for consent; and nonvoluntary, one in which the person to be killed is in such a condition that he cannot make a decision on whether to go on living or not. singer justifies voluntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia, but not involuntary. he considers involuntary as morally incorrect since it is done against the person's will to live on, and if the person chooses to live on, then clearly living on (although under pain) gives the person more pleasure and singer's utilitarian principle then justifies living on. this same argument goes for the voluntary euthanasia. nonvoluntary however, is quite differently argued. singer sticks with his utilitarian principle and claims that in case of defective birth, if the child cannot then lead a life of a good quality, then taking the life of the child is justified. for singer, such a thing as an unworthy life to live exists, and euthanasia is justified for those who are living unworthy lives.

poverty:

in a nutshell, singer argues that human beings are morally obliged to help prevent absolute poverty, as long as the sacrifice made to do such a thing is not something of comparable significance. singer harshly compares not helping to murder, by addressing five objections to his comparison. first, singer addresses the lack of identifiable victim: if a person KNOWS that not helping causes the death of some people, then deciding not to help will be the same as murder, despite there is no specific victim. second, singer addresses the lack of certainty that the money sent to help will actually be a help: for singer, this is a valid point in the argument, but still is not acceptable; he gives an example about a speeding motorist who does not harm any pedestrian, but the act of speeding itself is already unacceptable. third, singer addresses the claim that we are not responsible for other people starving since they would still be starving even if we didn't exist: this point is considered irrelevant to singer; he takes the notion of a consequentialist by saying that if someone starving is a result of us not sending our money to help, then we are at fault, regardless of whether we exist or not. fourth, singer addresses the claim that motivation of not helping and murder is different: again singer gives an example about the speeding motorist; his intention was of course just to feel the adrenaline rush from speeding. but if he ends up killing someone in the process, then he is held responsible, regardless of his intial intention. and the fifth, singer addresses the claim that it is easier to not kill than to save lives, since saving lives could probably mean lowering our standards to that below our bare necessities: this claim, for singer, is not sound because it takes into account our society, in which donating is done for the praise; he claims that praise or blame does not justify right or wrong. singer also argues that it is possible for us to help without lowering our standards to that of below bare necessity. he gives examples on things we can sacrifice to help prevent poverty, which is of greater moral significance: expensive dinners, overseas holidays, larger house, extra cars, etc. singer in "practical ethics" also brought up the objection from triage. the concept of triage says that we should not aid those who do not need aid and those to whom the aid will become useless. this is in a way similar to "lifeboat ethics" in which people in a lifeboat will not let those floating in the ocean to jump in because the boat will drown. singer disagrees with such a concept that claims the rich should not help the poor because the poor will drag the rich down with them. singer proposes different ways to handle different poverty type, but he insists that the poor should not be left to starve.