On Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:21:54 -0800 Marta Russell <ap888 at lafn.org> writes:
>
>
>
>> Subject: American Bioethics Advisory Commission Demands...
>> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 16:30:57 EST
>> From: AOLNews at aol.com
>>
>> American Bioethics Advisory Commission Demands Resignation Of
>Princeton
>> Professor
>>
>> WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 /PRNewswire/ -- "The American Bioethics Advisory
>Committee
>> is demanding the resignation of Princeton professor of Philosophy
>Peter
>> Singer," said ABAC president Father Joseph Howard.
>>
>> Dr. Singer has held the appointment of the Ira W. DeCamp Professor
>of
>> Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values since the fall
>of this
>> year.
>>
>> Dr. Singer, who is also president of the International Society of
>Bioethics,
>> is both pro-abortion and pro-infanticide and wrote in his article,
>Rethinking
>> Life and Death: A New Ethical Approach, "A newborn infant does not
>have the
>> same right to life as a person and the cultures that practiced
>infanticide
>> were on solid ground."
In fact it should be noted that Western socieites in fact were generally quite tolerant of infanticide right up until the late eighteenth century. Even though infanticide was technically illegal the fact was that both the state and the Church tended to look the other way especially when it occurred in poor families.
>>
>> In the same article, Singer rewrites the 10 Commandments, the first
>of which
>> reads, "Recognize that the worth of human life varies." The fourth
>and fifth
>> respectively read, "Bring children into the world only if they are
>wanted,"
>> and "Do not discriminate on the basis of species."
>>
>> Singer also writes, "Some non-human animals are more like normal
>human beings
>> than are some seriously damaged members of our own species."
>>
>> "My daughter had intended on applying to Princeton but she will not
>attend a
>> school that espouses the beliefs of a man who advocates the killing
>of
>> disabled infants. We'll look for another school and Princeton
>better take
>> into consideration how many other parents and families will make the
>same
>> decision," said Erin Alexander of Clearwater, Texas.
>>
I would suggest that if Mr Alexander's daughter wants to shelter herself from the views of Singer she would do well not only to avoid Princeton but steer clear of all Ivy League universities, indeed stay away from any major university whatsoever since at almost any such institution she is bound to bump into professor who hold views not unlike Singer's. In fact she should perhaps pursue her higher education at a backwoods Bible college where she can avoid the rigors of engaging in critical thought.
>> In his book, Practical Ethics, Singer writes, "Because people are
>human does
>> not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals."
As has already been discussed before on this list the classical rationale for valuing human life over non-human life was that humans were said to be rational while non-humans were not. This rationale goes at least as far back as Aristotle. It was later endorsed by the Stoics and was adopted by Catholic moral theologians. In modern times it was reaffirmed by Kant and his disciples. However, as Singer points out it is an empirical fact that there are many humans who do not by any credible criteria be considered to be rational such as people who are severely brain damaged or people who by injury or diseased have been reduced to a permanent vegetative state.
>>
>> "Apparently Singer believes that we should be able to judge the
>quality of
>> life for another human," said Howard.
In fact such judgements are made all the time when executives at automotive companies decide not to provide their automobile with certain safety devices since they are deemed to be "too costly" or when public policy makers decide to cut certain categories of people from the social security roll in order to balance the budget. Any honest policy wonk on this list can tell you that in fact decision makers do not in fact treat all human lives as having equal value.
>>
>> "Each and every one of us, including Peter Singer has from 5 to 50
>defective
>> sequences of DNA from the moment of fertilization. No member of the
>human
>> species has a perfect genome. These imperfect sequences, though not
>always
>> expressed, could over time become active causing disease or
>pathology. It
>> would seem that Dr. Singer in fact discriminates on the basis of
>species by
>> the fact that the species in question, the human species, is not
>perfect."
>> Howard said.
And Howard's point is?
>>
>> "The essence of philosophy is to seek the truth and apply it to our
>lives.
>> Placing higher value on animal rights than human life is a blatant
>disregard
>> for the natural law.
Is there any coherent expositions of the notion of natural law
that do not rely direct upon theology.
>>
>> "Peter Singer is an apostate to philosophy and bioethics and must be
>removed
>> from his appointment immediately before he causes further harm to
>Princeton
>> University students seeking truth not relativism.
I would like to know just what it means to be an "apostate to
philosophy and bioethics?" In my book one would be betraying
philosophy if one refuses to follow critically assess arguments
and to attempt to follow them to their logical conclusions. However,
no evidence is presented here that Singer is guilty of this. On the
contrary, it would seem that the objection to Singer is precisely
that he has been critically assessing bioethical arguments and in
doing so has undermined certain moral views that are dear to
religious conservatives. Also the claim that Singer pursues
relativism rather than the truth is on the face of it ridiculous.
The author or authors do not define relativism but on any
of the accepted definitions it seems evident that Singer is
not a relativist. On the contrary he seems to believe that the
pursuit of reasoned argument is likely to lead us to moral
principles that are fairer and more humane. One may well
disagree with his conclusions but that does not make him
a relativist.
>>
>> The ABAC is a division of American Life League, and is a
>commissioned
>> organization of scholars
If this tract is an example of their scholarship then I must say that they are poor excuses indeed for scholars.
Jim Farmelant
>> in law, medicine, science and philosophy
>and Theology
>> for the purpose of developing ethical solutions to questions
>regarding
>> cloning, contraception, reproductive technologies and brain death.
>>
>> SOURCE American Bioethics Advisory Commission
>>
>> CO: American Bioethics Advisory Commission; American Life League
>>
>> ST: District of Columbia, New Jersey
>>
>> IN: HEA
>>
>> SU:
>>
>> 11/19/98 16:30 EST http://www.prnewswire.com
>>
>> To edit your profile, go to keyword <A
>HREF="aol://1722:NewsProfiles">
>> NewsProfiles</A>.
>> For all of today's news, go to keyword <A
>HREF="aol://1722:News">News</A>.
>
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________ 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]