Michael wrote: "Now I am disabled and I am a philosopher and I would love to
debate John Harris, Peter Singer or Helga Kuhse in person."
Helen in response wrote: "I am also interested in philosophy and believe that
the work of Peter Singer (I do not know that of John Harrisor Helga Kuhse)
has been much misunderstood."
It's tempting, I'll admit, to make some sarcastic comments which link
individualism, philosophy and smoking dope, but I'll try and refrain.
Instead, I'll restrict myself to questioning once again, our understanding of
the concept "freedom of speech" and its role within a democratic society.
I'm reminded of a story, untrue of course, of a young Jew who witnessed
anti-fascists breaking up a Nazi rally. So shocked by what he had seen, he rushed
over to the speaker - a small man, a bit of hair on his top lip and odd parting
- and said, "I totally disagree with what you're saying, but I'll defend your
right to say it, even if it kills me."
When Hitler came to power, he thanked the young Jew for his moral stance by
abolishing free speech and putting him in a gas oven.
If there is a moral to this tale, it has to be that "free speech" is
conditioned by the speaker's responsibility to existing law there to protect a wide
range of interests and their audience - and this includes those who aren't
present, don't particularly want to hear what is being said, but could be directly
affected by what was said.
Michael, I'm sure my young Jew in theory could've spent hours "debating" with
Hitler - but as I'm not a philosopher, but a mere political being, my gut
reaction is to ask:
"And the point would be?"
Apart from offering individual excitement through an intellectual game of
chess; surely it would serve no purpose other than to provide you with
self-gratification? Think you're going to challenge or change the likes of Peter Singer?
Helen, please forgive me, but you seem to have set or sent yourself up - the
world doesn't understand poor Peter, but dear Helen does....
"To me he is very clear about moral thinking on a wide range of issues,
including equality. For example, he has written that the only defensible basis for
the principle of equality is equal consideration of interests, meaning that
no-one - including disabled people - should be given less consideration than
anyone else."
And what is the basis of this "consideration"? Is it not value driven in the
case of Singer?
Having heard Singer speak many times, I cannot see where there's room for
misunderstanding - his views are based on a traditional philosophy and this
philosophy, when transformed into social and political action, could have
oppressive consequences for those who the Nazis, for example, called "useless eaters" .
"What has the Disabled People's movement got to lose?" What has it to gain:
respect from a moral or philosophical stance?
We should offer a political challenge - and expose all this nonsense about
"freedom of speech" - where is it afforded to disabled people? Are you saying
we're able to exercise our voice in the same manner as the likes of Singer? Do
me a favour!
"I agree that it does us no favours at all to silence other people just
because we may disagree with them." In my opinion, the issue has nothing to do with
agreeing or disagreeing with Singer.
Justifying certain actions, albeit from a philosophical stance, where these
actions could be considered detrimental to certain people has to be judged in
terms of whether or not the words could incite action which at a later date
could have the potential to threaten those who might be subjected to those
actions as a result of what had been said.
Bob Williams-Findlay
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|