To all,
Whilst I respect this view, it is indicative of what stops debate - no one
here (correct me if I am wrong) is defending the rights of those who seek to
commit genocide or curtals others' liberties. Singer argues that infants
with a cognitive may be aborted - a view I find repulsive, but he is not for
wholesale slaughter of ALL Disabled people, no current ethicist does to my
knowledge.
Of course, for debate occur both parties have to agree to certail social
rules. Can disabled and non disabled who disagree obey these rules long
enough to hear Singer and respond?
Michael
>From: Bob Williams-Findlay <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Medical Ethics Lectures
>Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 07:27:22 EST
>
>Michael wrote: "Now I am disabled and I am a philosopher and I would love
>to
>debate John Harris, Peter Singer or Helga Kuhse in person."
>
>Helen in response wrote: "I am also interested in philosophy and believe
>that
>the work of Peter Singer (I do not know that of John Harrisor Helga Kuhse)
>has been much misunderstood."
>
>It's tempting, I'll admit, to make some sarcastic comments which link
>individualism, philosophy and smoking dope, but I'll try and refrain.
>
>Instead, I'll restrict myself to questioning once again, our understanding
>of
>the concept "freedom of speech" and its role within a democratic society.
>
>I'm reminded of a story, untrue of course, of a young Jew who witnessed
>anti-fascists breaking up a Nazi rally. So shocked by what he had seen, he
>rushed
>over to the speaker - a small man, a bit of hair on his top lip and odd
>parting
>- and said, "I totally disagree with what you're saying, but I'll defend
>your
>right to say it, even if it kills me."
>
>When Hitler came to power, he thanked the young Jew for his moral stance by
>abolishing free speech and putting him in a gas oven.
>
>If there is a moral to this tale, it has to be that "free speech" is
>conditioned by the speaker's responsibility to existing law there to
>protect a wide
>range of interests and their audience - and this includes those who aren't
>present, don't particularly want to hear what is being said, but could be
>directly
>affected by what was said.
>
>Michael, I'm sure my young Jew in theory could've spent hours "debating"
>with
>Hitler - but as I'm not a philosopher, but a mere political being, my gut
>reaction is to ask:
>
>"And the point would be?"
>
>Apart from offering individual excitement through an intellectual game of
>chess; surely it would serve no purpose other than to provide you with
>self-gratification? Think you're going to challenge or change the likes of
>Peter Singer?
>
>Helen, please forgive me, but you seem to have set or sent yourself up -
>the
>world doesn't understand poor Peter, but dear Helen does....
>
>"To me he is very clear about moral thinking on a wide range of issues,
>including equality. For example, he has written that the only defensible
>basis for
>the principle of equality is equal consideration of interests, meaning that
>no-one - including disabled people - should be given less consideration
>than
>anyone else."
>
>And what is the basis of this "consideration"? Is it not value driven in
>the
>case of Singer?
>
>Having heard Singer speak many times, I cannot see where there's room for
>misunderstanding - his views are based on a traditional philosophy and this
>philosophy, when transformed into social and political action, could have
>oppressive consequences for those who the Nazis, for example, called
>"useless eaters" .
>
>"What has the Disabled People's movement got to lose?" What has it to gain:
>respect from a moral or philosophical stance?
>
>We should offer a political challenge - and expose all this nonsense about
>"freedom of speech" - where is it afforded to disabled people? Are you
>saying
>we're able to exercise our voice in the same manner as the likes of Singer?
>Do
>me a favour!
>
>"I agree that it does us no favours at all to silence other people just
>because we may disagree with them." In my opinion, the issue has nothing to
>do with
>agreeing or disagreeing with Singer.
>
> Justifying certain actions, albeit from a philosophical stance, where
>these
>actions could be considered detrimental to certain people has to be judged
>in
>terms of whether or not the words could incite action which at a later date
>could have the potential to threaten those who might be subjected to those
>actions as a result of what had been said.
>
>Bob Williams-Findlay
>
>
>
>
>________________End of message______________________
>
>Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
>are now located at:
>
>www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
>You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|