Singer actually does not believe in individualism. He believes in the good
of society and the individualism stops where there is a perceived threat
to the society. For example Singer supports the prohibition of female
infanticide and sex selection in India because a sex unbalance is bad for
a society. There he throws away the notion of indivifdual rights (of the
parents). He of course and with him the majority of society does not
perceive the lack of disabled people as a reat to society. Society
believes that they are better of without them. So Singer uses therefore
this sentiment knowing that as long as he uses a disability as an example
that he would be on safe ground.
I still wait for the gay gene because it would be interesting how the
debate would go if the gay community would be in the same situation than
we are
(which obviously won't happen and there are Bioethicists already out
developing frameworks that gay deselecton would be evil but not disability
deselection).
Cheers
Gregor
On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Ron Amundson wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lennard Davis <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 8:57 AM
> Subject: Re: Singer/Asch debate
>
>
> > I'd love to debate with Singer. I spent all day yesterday driving from
> > Binghamton to NYC having my own private debate with Singer. Judging from
> > the response in my car, I won. But I WAS the only person in the car.
>
> Just for the record, I intend to go on tour with the Rolling Stones. With
> my voice, I can kick Mick's butt. At least it sounds that way in my shower.
> ;-)
>
> > This discussion only reiterates what I've been saying that we need to have
> > a PR/speaker's bureau. I can think of any number of people to add on to
> > Adrienne who would be able to argue Singer into a corner....
>
> But let's get back to the real world, ok? First, I just don't believe that
> our heroes are going to win this series of boxing matches. The judges will
> be academics and the students of academics, the great majority of whom are
> steeped in the medical model and all of the premises that make Singer
> mainstream. We (you and I and other DS activists) will "see" Singer argued
> into a corner, but most the audience will "see" that corner as exactly the
> place any reasonable person would want to be.
>
> Your recent point was exactly right (Lennard) that bioethics assumes an
> individualistic medical model, and that the deepest criticism of Singer is
> the criticism of that individualism. But individualism is the core
> ideology of the US (if not the UK), and its refutation will never be
> achieved in the sound-bite atmosphere of a public debate.
>
> In the US there is an embarrassing history of evolutionary biologists who
> eagerly agreed to public debates with fundamentalist creationists. By and
> large, the creationists kicked the biologists' butts (in the opinion of the
> audiences) even though the biologists usually wandered off thinking that
> they'd won the debate because they knew the truth. The creationists were
> skilled and experienced in public debates, they knew the audience's
> prejudices, and they knew how to ask the biologists questions that couldn't
> be answered in sound-bites. As much as I respect the gladiators you
> nominate, I do not believe that they can out-sound-bite Singer to an
> audience of college students and faculty.
>
> This is a complicated issue. One the one hand, scholarly decisions are not
> made on the basis of public jousting matches, but on published scholarship.
> (As we have certainly learned from the creationist debates.) On the other
> hand, we as activists want to influence public opinion, and not only
> scholarly opinion.
>
> I do not believe that the solution is a traveling road show of Singer versus
> the Disabilty Scholars. One reason is that we are NOT Mick Jagger; we would
> not be victorious in the eyes of the audience as the audience is presently
> composed. A second is that a debate with Singer sets the stage with
> assumptions that we ought not to accept -- the individualism that you so
> rightly criticize. A third is that many members of our community consider
> Singer's views so morally repugnant that they ought not to be honored with
> our presence. I don't personally feel this way, but I respect those who do.
> I certainly don't feel that we should try to book Singer's public
> appearances for him.
>
> The increased participation of DS scholars in biomedical ethics conferences
> is probably a step in the right direction. Booking Singer into DS venues
> seems perverse to me. Like inviting a creationist to a conference on
> evolutionary biology. The creationist takes credit for talking with the
> scientists -- credit that he does not deserve because he has said nothing
> meaningful to them. Singer at the SDS, for example, would be in the same
> situation.
>
> Personally, I'd love to argue with Singer. I think I could kick his ass. But
> then I think I sing better than Jagger.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ron
>
> --
> Ron Amundson
> University of Hawaii at Hilo
> Hilo, HI 96720
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
Dr. Gregor Wolbring
Research Scientist at the
Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Faculty of Medicine
and Adjunct Assistant Professor
at the Dept. of Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies
Faculty of Education
both University of Calgary
Phone 1-403-220-5448
Fax 1-403-283-4740
eFax 1-603-761-3704
e-mail [log in to unmask]
webpage: http://www.thalidomide.ca/gwolbring
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|