I've been watching the debate all afternoon by downloading the archived
material. I do think that Adrienne did a great job in a difficult
circumstance, and I congratulate her and her willingness to do something at
the last minute to confront Singer. However, I think that part of the
problem is that two bio-ethicists were arguing with each other. Although
Adrienne holds a very different set of opinions within that discipline,
there is a whole lot of common ground. For me the central problem was that
there was not enough discussion of society and the state as opposed to
individuals and ethical choices. In essence, bioethics has a very
individual-oriented predisposition. So one argues about whether a disabled
child's parents should chose x or y rather than placing the whole nature of
that question in a larger societal scope. There were moments that this
kind of discussion came up, but usually in the context of "making a
choice." I would think that Singer would have a harder time talking about
law, legislation, the bill of rights (which they don't have in England and
perhaps in Australia), the class system, civil-rights legislation, human
rights and so on.
Best,
Lennard J. Davis
Graduate Director
Deparment of English
Binghamton University
Binghamton, NY 13902
607-777-2770 Fax: 777-2408
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|