To all
This is a issue which I have had an interest in for some time. It has taken
me some time to collect my thoughts, so here goes.
I am a philosophy student and Singer's "Practical Ethics" is not just a text
used in the course it's core reading (when it comes to Euthanasia), the
text you have to argue against or agree with. This makes is one of the
reasons I see it as relevant.
In Rethinking Life and death Singer argues that for practical reasons
sanctity of life ethics is not practical it should therefore be given up. I
am not a disciple of Singer's but I am suprised that this was argued over so
much. I do not agree with his reasoning about euthanasia and disability
throughout that book but the core I a feel forced to agree with the end of
sanctity of life ethics for one reason only. It does not happen. In
hospitals people going for operations are judged by quality of life, and as
much as I hate quality of life ethics to keep sanctity of life is
inpractical, at least to there is no shortage of hearts, livers etc.
Sanctity of Life is still a nice ideal and is definitely worth fighting for.
I disagree with his views on Euthanasia in Practial Ethics and Rethinking
life and death for one simple academic reason. Utilitarianism. I do not
think that something is good because it benefits society. Benefit does
equal Good. It also bring onto society a ethical theory which that society
may not have asked for. This does not an ethical theory make. I much
prefer Intuitionism where something is Good-in-itself regardless of the
amount of people or benefit.
Has Singer refused debate? I don't know. Helga Kuhse has not (co-author
with Singer on "Should the baby live")
Excuse the long e-mail
Michael
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|