Now my question is why we have to convince Singer (he will never give up
his utilitarian philosophy). THe best we can achieve is that he might see
that his philosophy will lead to an increase in negative stereotype of the
target characteristic and in an increase of social injustice.
So far human rights/equality rights movements have a certain
philosophy And it's perfectly fine that we use that. It's not about
convincing Singer. I mean he is a utilitarian. Now many ideas within the
utilitarian philosophy do not agree with a human/equality rights
philosophy. So we have to get accross to people that the equality is an
important philosophy (still).
Also in my eyes the much more damaging problem in the moment is that even
within our own human/equality rights movement we don't really work the
equality rights principle (selective deselection; no support for
the equality rights of the characteristic labelled disabled...)
or e.g. many groups complained that on TV their group isn't
reprresented enough. Every group who is powerful ewnough made that
complain for their characteristic (gay/lesbians and coloured people)
But no one talked about the broader concept to have the TV reflect the
true composition of society with equal respect for every characteristic.
None of the groups thought that disabled people are not on TV either and
if we are on we are often portraided in a very demeaning stereotypical way
(suffering entety or supercrip)
And all of these probelems the systemic problems we have are totally
independent of Singer. He can only sell his philosphy because in reality
hiis phylosophy is the feeling of hte land (related to the characteristic
disability). He just provides now a philosophical framework for an
emotional reality
On Sat, 4 Sep 1999, Ron Amundson wrote:
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Peckitt <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Friday, September 03, 1999 11:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Peter Singer - A Singer Counterargument
>
>
> :>In other words, we and all people have the
> :>right to be treated as other people (equal protection) and the right to be
> :>treated fairly (due process). These rights are well articulated in
> :>political theory and elsewhere and are quite powerful.....David
> :
> :If I may Devil's Advocate the a minute here, I think I can give a kind of
> :counterargument Singer would:-
> :
> :Equal protection seems to imply some Social Contract Theory or some
> :variation like that of Rawls or Norman. In SCT members of society are
> :aware of its rules the most important rule being to harm others. If any
> :breaks the rules the risk revenge be exacted upon them because they have
> :broken the rules.
>
>
> You're right that equal protection makes more sense to an SCT theorist than
> to a utilitarian. But on SCT, punishment for breaking the rules is not
> 'revenge', it's _justice_. SCT is supposed to explain why certain social
> rules are _just_ even if in individual cases they do not guarantee happiness
> (or preference-maximizing).
>
> :However Singer would argue that since some people with disabilities cannot
> :understand the world around them, they could therefore neither understand
> :the rules - his famous human/person disctinction. It would therefore be
> :unfair on those who did undertsand them and were "rule-abiding" citizens,
> :and on the disabled person themselves since they would be punished so
> often.
>
>
> Singer would not argue this, for two reasons. First, being a utilitarian,
> the concern about what's fair and unfair is not something he'd be all that
> concerned with. Second, it isn't really a criticism of SCT. Under SCT, it
> is an open question whether or not the "humans" SInger calls "non-persons"
> would or would not be protected. It is possible to be an SCT theorist and
> come down on either side of the question.
>
> Under SCT, you are supposed to consider how you would "vote" on the rules of
> a society _before_ you know what your own personal characteristics are in
> that society. In this hypothetical situation, since you don't know whether
> you are male or female, the rules you vote for would not discriminate
> against either sex.
>
> For SCT, the Big Question is this: Consider the possibility that you are
> severely disabled, as well as all of the other possibilities. Now, wouldn't
> you prefer that we kill you as an infant? There is a strong tendency among
> a lot of people to say yes (when the question is asked in a certain way),
> but most disability activists believe that a "yes" answer is based on
> bigotry and ignorance.
>
> The argument you sketch is something that a pro-euthanasia SCT theorist
> would use against an anti-euthanasia SCT theorist.
>
> David and I, in our support for equal protection and due process, are both
> Social Contact Theorists (at least to the extent that Thomas Jefferson was).
> But SC Theory alone is not enough to block the eugenic/euthanisiac impulse.
> You have get people to imagine themselves as having non-dispensable lives
> even while disabled. And that's almost the same job as getting a
> preference-utilitarian like Singer to include severely disabled humans as
> "persons" who have preferences.
>
> I'm sorry to admit that philosophical theories of ethics won't solve the
> problem of discrimination against PWDs. The same prejudices can take hold
> whatever your ethical theory is. It would be harder to argue against Singer
> if he were a sophisticated SCT theorist, but the problems would be very
> similar.
>
> Ron
>
> --
> Ron Amundson
> University of Hawaii at Hilo
> Hilo, HI 96720
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
Dr. Gregor Wolbring
Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Faculty of Medicine
University of Calgary
3330 Hospital Drive NW
Calgary, T2N 4N1
Alberta, Canada
Phone 1403-220-5448
Fax 1-403-283-4740
eFax 1-603-761-3704
e-mail [log in to unmask]
webpage: http://www.thalidomide.ca/gwolbring
Dr. Gregor Wolbring
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies
University of Calgary
Phone 1403-220-5448
Fax 1-403-283-4740
eFax 1-603-761-3704
e-mail [log in to unmask]
webpage: http://www.thalidomide.ca/gwolbring
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
