Dear Stephen,
> 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's not what you say, it's how you say it. It's what you leave out,
it's the emotional tone, it's the slippages in meaning.
As Laurence Bathurst reminded us, we all read things differently.
I dont read and memorise rational arguments - when I read a text I tune
into what I read between the lines - the warmth/ the sincerity/ the
authenticity/ the anger/ resentmen etc , and I strike a balance between
what I see there and the "pure logic" of the argument. (I think we all
do that, but for some reason, especially in academic circles, we still
feel obliged to pretend that we are operating on pure reason alone.)
I have only read "Rethinking Life and Death", and though I recognise
your summary, it is not the book I remember.
What I read in Peter Singer is an attempt to "Rethink Life and Death"
when science has upturned all our ideas of what it means to be "a
person", when religious ideas about the sanctity of life no longer
satisfy many of us. What I see is a sincere attempt to think about these
things, in accessible and popular language, from a rationalist
perspective. I see an attempt to find an ethical basis for the reality
that many parents still choose to abort/ refuse to sustain children with
severe disabilities. I dont like the word "kill" in this context, and I
find its use as a propaganda weapon distasteful and alienating. Which is
not the same as trying to drown out people who feel strongly enough
about the issue to want to use it.
I also see that Peter Singer isan over-specialised intellectual, who
loses sight of the forest for the trees.
It is understandable that when he wrote "Rethinking etc", he was
ignorant of the social model of disability. Now however, it's beginning
to look like poor scholarship for someone who wants to stand on an
academic platform.
That's why I'm interesting in hearing him in dialogue with Social Model
rationalists, to see if and how he has modified his views, whether he
has developed a broader understanding. Until then, I dont feel that I
have enough information.
In the end it doesnt matter what Peter Singer "really* said, what
matters is what we are saying now.
I realise that I was trying to silence you for trying to silence him,
but it seems like we're having an interesting debate anyway. What makes
it interesting is that there is both reason and unreasonable passion in
it.
Judy Singer
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|