>From: David Pfeiffer <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Peter Singer
>Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:25:43 -1000
>
>Erik suggests that we have no alternatives to Singer's argument nor to
>Sanctity of Life ethics. But we have. For many years I have put forth (and
>Ron Amundson recently did in this discussion) that we have a basis for an
>arguement which encompases equal protection and due process. (Ron did not
>use the due process part.) In other words, we and all people have the
>right to be treated as other people (equal protection) and the right to be
>treated fairly (due process). These rights are well articulated in
>political theory and elsewhere and are quite powerful.....David
If I may Devil's Advocate the a minute here, I think I can give a kind of
counterargument Singer would:-
Equal protection seems to imply some Social Contract Theory or some
variation like that of Rawls or Norman. In SCT members of society are
aware of its rules the most important rule being to harm others. If any
breaks the rules the risk revenge be exacted upon them because they have
broken the rules.
However Singer would argue that since some people with disabilities cannot
understand the world around them, they could therefore neither understand
the rules - his famous human/person disctinction. It would therefore be
unfair on those who did undertsand them and were "rule-abiding" citizens,
and on the disabled person themselves since they would be punished so often.
Personaly I like SCT and the concept of equal protection, but I believe that
is the type of response Singer would give.
Michael
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|