> >
> > Singer does say human life is not more valuable that animal life. But he
> >seems to justify infanticide primarily upon utilitarianism and his definition
> >of personhood. He says that infants under 30 days old are not
> >sentient beings,
> >are not persons (fully human) so therefore it is OK to kill them if it would
> >make the parents happy.
>
> But Singer also says that it is not OK to kill animals cruelly, or
> wantonly, or for no good purpose--
There are contradictions to Singer's position and this is one. Would he, being an animal rights activist, for instance, advocate killing puppies that are one week old because they don't have doghood? What if an owner didn't like the fact that his dog mated with some dog he didn't like and desired to kill all the puppies to make himself happy -- another example.
If he advocated such a position, the animal rights people would be on his back in a New York second. Yet he unhesitatingly says it is OK to kill human infants under 30 days old and people agree with him.
> and that it is not OK for
> inhabitants of the industrial core to give less than 90% of their
> income to the world's poor. His position (which I don't like) seems
> to me to be a bit more complex...
I think Singer is ridiculous but he is taken seriously by lots of people. The Singer Asch debate outlines some of his positions -- which are complex and which I don't want to bore people with on this list who may not be interested. If you would like to read it, I can send an email copy.
Marta