Michael and all --
Singer's chief success has come from exploiting the assumption that is
widespread (among academics especially) that there are exactly two
choices -- sanctity of life and quality of life. If you don't like sanctity
of life then you have to go with quality of life. That's wrong. It's like
saying if you don't like Stalin, then you gotta like Reagan (i.e. Thatcher
;-)).
Sanctity (sacredness) of life is a religious concept. Quality of life looks
pleasantly secular. Those of us who (like me) are skeptical of religous
dogma are easily charmed into thinking that our progressive politics require
us to be Quality-Of-Lifers. Once QOL is seen as the only alternative to
religious cant, Singer is what you get. If you reject the dichotomy between
Sacredness and QOL there is room for argument.
I'm not an ethicist, but I am a philosopher. (Sorry folks.) My impression
is that just as the philosophical community completely missed the boat on
the civil rights approach to disability (we're feebly trying to catch up),
we've also missed the boat on life-value questions. Secular
anti-assisted-suicide activists in the U.S. base their arguments _neither_
on "sanctity" nor "quality" definitions of what makes life valuable. The
third alternative hasn't been baptized yet: Wesley Smith (an activist)
sometimes calls it "equality of life".
The idea is that certain forms of death-making violate the civil rights of
those being made dead. That's morally wrong. But not because those lives
were sacred. It's wrong because those lives were not given equal protection
with other lives. ("Equal protection" is a U.S. constitutional phrase.) The
reason they were not given equal protection is that SOMEONE decided that the
lives were of such low quality that they ought to be ended. Singer
eloquently illustrates how easy it is to decide that a life is of such low
quality that it ought to be ended.
There are some of us out here who believe that _whether or not_ lives are
sacred, death-making based on (supposed) QOL is simple oppression.
Judgements that people like Singer make of "quality" are plain old
prejudice, based on disdain for abnormals.
Ron
ps: And, um, if anyone out there objects to my trendy use of "death-making",
be aware that I object to the cutesy use of the term "death with dignity" to
refer to being snuffed by your doctor. I mean, what? You get to wear a
tuxedo?
--
Ron Amundson
University of Hawaii at Hilo
Hilo, HI 96720
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Peckitt <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 11:24 PM
Subject: Peter Singer
: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.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|