<< >
> << We've heard this "right of society" line before, it has been used to
> sterilize and exterminate disabled people, gays, deaf, gypsies, blacks,
> alcoholics, Jews, any social "deviant."
> >>
>
> JKS: It's offensive and ignorant to accuse Singer of being a Nazi.
>
I was thinking broader than Nazis. In the U.S. members of the the
criminal/incarcerated population were regularly sterilized by physicians and
ironically the inventor of the iron lung (Alex Carol?) advocated for euthanasia
of disabled adults.
But you have not a shred of evidence that Singer advocates or defends any of these policies, which of course he doesn't, or that he's commited to them despite himself, because he isn't. You are lucky you are writing in America, where the comstitutional protections against libel are strong, and not Britain, where any statement which is defamatory and false is actionable--also that Singer has a thick skin.
YOU: I am no advocate of animal abuse but it is astounding that Singer can draw a
conclusion about inteferring with the life of an animal (which is not a rational
being last time I checked)
JKS: His view is that they are sentient, and that their pain has moral weight even though they are not for the most part rational.
YOU: and then judges which baby (human) life is worth
living and which is not according to it's full-being qualifications i.e.,
rational etc..
Singer does not say that newborn lives are not worth living, just that you can't draw any nice lines at partuition, so that if you think late term abortion is all right, you can't balk at infanticide. Which raises the question, where do you draw the line. Singer seems to draw it at the earliest development of rationality. which does suggest that his animal rightys position is based on the immorality of causing unnecessary pain to the animals we might kill, and not killing them per se. From a structly utilitarian point of view, that makes sense. But does raise the question about why killing semi- rational beings like 6-month olds is bad.
Does he say that it is OK to kill or use the baby animals in
experiments but not their parents because the babies aren't fully an animal???
No. In fact he generally opposes animal experimentation because he thinks it causes unnecesasry pain.
I'd suggest you read his work. It's extremely clear and accessible for work by a well=regarded philosopher. His book Practical Ethics is a good introduction.
--jks