Claiming Darwin for the Left???

[James Farmelant]

Peter Singer as I understand him defends what is a fairly
classical utilitarian position.  Like Jeremy Bentham he holds
that a creature becomes morally significant as long as it
is sentient and thus capable of suffering as opposed to the
Aristotelian (and Kantian) position that a creature must be
a rational being - hence a person - before it can be regarded
as abeing morally significant.  Hence, Singer's defense of
"animal rights" although technically speaking as a utilitarian
he (like Bentham two centuries ago) is skeptical about rights
as such whether human or animal.  At the same time Singer does
regard the posession of such attributes as having a sense of
oneself and a capacity for rationality as factors that increase
one's moral significance.  Singer's defense of abortion rights
is predicated on the assumption that fetuses are lacking in these
attributes hence one can legitimately sacrifice the life of a fetus
in the interests of the mother.  Singer also notes that neonates
do not differ appreciably from from say a nine month old fetus
in terms of these attributes.  Therefore, he thinks it is legitimate
to euthanize neonates if they are deemed to be suffering from
medical conditions of such severity that they are unlikely to
ever enjoy much in the way of quality of life. In Singer's view
a neonate is no more a person than is a fetus about to be born.

In the case of Frances' hypothetical 35 year old man with an
IQ of 12, Singer would in my understanding regard his personhood
as being open to question since such a man may not have any sense
of self or any capacity for rationality.  On the other hand assuming
that he is sentient then for SInger he would still be of moral
significance
so therefore we would still have moral obligations to protect and
feed him and so spare him any unnecesary suffering.

		Jim Farmelant

On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 15:43:26 -0500 (EST) "Frances Bolton (PHI)"
<fbolton at chuma.cas.usf.edu> writes:
>
>
>On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, Max asked a highly loaded question:
>
>> What is the difference between a baby less than
>> 30 days old, and one whose head is still inside
>> the mother?
>
>Ack! While I am obviously in favor of a woman's absolute right to 
>choose,
>I am not in favor of eugenics. The following two statements are 
>different,
>"I do *not* want this baby." and "I do not want *this* baby." The 
>former
>is not about the fetus. It is about not wanting to have a child. The
>second statement is directed towards a particular fetus or baby. As 
>such,
>I think it's directed towards a *person*. Now, if I get pregnant  
>and I don't want a baby, I abort it. No problem. My action is not 
>directed
>towards another self (broadly understood).
>It has nothing to do with that fetus *in particular*. Now,
>if I get pregnant, and I want a baby, but I find out that tests show 
>the
>child will have some kind of disability, and then I abort it, I think
>that's different. My actions are aimed towards another. Now, I suppose 
>you
>could make an argument that the baby is not yet an Other until it has 
>some
>sense of self. In that case, let me ask if the 35 year old man with an 
>IQ
>of 12 (yes I know IQ is problematic) who sits in a wheelchair wearing
>depends, unable to speak or feed himself. Is *he* a person?
>
>frances
>
>

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]