 |
 |
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 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%