On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Judy Singer wrote:
> This was not so much a "Fact Sheet" as a "Misrepresentation Sheet".
I'm glad you're weighing in. It would be helpful if you could be specific
as to the misrepresentations -- I've already given my sources in my
earlier reply to John Homan, and perhaps you could help me to understand
my errors.
> It says more about the needs of nascent social movements for simple,
> clearly-cut enemies to unite against, then it does about Peter Singer's
> actual arguments.
>
> What I would like to see, is a proper debate/ discussion between Singer
> and some prominent Social Model Theorists - now that would be
> constructive and worthwhile, and might result in his modifying his
> views - in a recent interview in the Sydney Morning Herald, he indicated
> that he has rethought some issues already.
In the recent interview in the Sydney Morning Herald, as I recall, he
indicated that one group of people whom he had asserted were obviously
less rewarding to raise or to be might not actually be such a good,
clear-cut example. I did not see him backing off his claim that it might
be acceptable, or praiseworthy, to kill certain people, just redefining
the group.
In any case -- and I'm sure you've read the appendix to _Practical_Ethics_
("On Being Silenced In Germany", in which he identifies not being given a
special platform from which to speak with not being permitted to speak at
all) -- Singer is very clear about who has the right to debate him. Dr.
Adolf Hubner, for example, is "not a philosopher; he is a retired
agricultural veterinarian" and therefore, despite being the president of
the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein society and having read Singer's work, it
was inappropriate for him to comment on the validity of protesters'
criticisms of Singer.
In this country, the notion of "nothing about us without us" has been a
notion slow to catch on with professionals who make major decisions about
policies and practices affecting and even defining the lives of people
with disabilities. We are not welcome at his table. His reactions to
criticisms from the disability community vary - sometimes he's bemused,
sometimes condescending, sometimes openly derisive. What he never does is
acknowledge our right to participate in the discussion at all. He
shouldn't be welcomed to our table either until he ceases his ad hominem
attacks on our thinkers and begins to address criticisms with the respect
he'd give them if they were made by people without disabilities and with
university positions.
Stephen Drake
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|