On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 09:10:08 -0700 Marta Russell <ap888 at lafn.org> writes:
> From a lawyer friend in Berkeley-
> marta
>
> Peter Singer will appear in a debate later this week in Oakland.
> Here
> is a statement from the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
> (DREDF) against his philosophy.
>
> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> -- -- --
>
> Against the Philosophy of Peter Singer
>
> Statement of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
> (DREDF)
>
>
>
> According to Singer, to be ethical, we must treat all "persons"
> according to moral guidelines. But not all humans are "persons" in
> his view. Singer claims that in order to be "persons" and to deserve
> moral consideration, beings must be self-aware, and capable of
> perceiving themselves as individuals through time.
Does anyone here have any objections to Singer's thesis concerning persons? So-called "pro-life" people typically contend that all humans including human fetuses are persons, and therefore entitled to basic human rights including the right to life. Most pro-choice people on the other hand would dispute this, holding that fetuses at least, while human, do not qualify as persons (they may at most be potential persons), and in defense of that contention they are likely to cite criteria similar to Singer's for assessing personhood - such as possessing self-awareness, and the capacity to perceive onself as an individual through time.
>
> Singer claims that some people with life-long cognitive disabilities
> never become "persons" at any time throughout their lives. He
> claims
> that some people who acquire cognitive disabilities cease to be
> "persons." For example, Singer writes:
>
> Only a person can want to go on living, or have plans for the
> future,
> because only a person can even understand the possibility of a
> future
> existence for herself or himself. This means that to end the lives
> of
> people, against their will, is different from ending the lives of
> beings who are not people. Indeed, strictly speaking, in the case
> of
> those who are not people, we cannot talk of ending their lives
> against or in accordance with their will, because they are not
> capable of having a will on such a matter. Š. [K]illing a person
> against her or his will is a much more serious wrong than killing a
> being that is not a person. If we want to put this in the language
> of rights, then it is reasonable to say that only a person has a
> right to life." (Rethinking Life and Death (NY: St. Martin's Press,
> 1995): 197-198)
That would seem to follow, given Singer's criteria for assessing personhood. But if DREDF rejects these criteria, then what is their stance on abortion? If they take a strong stance against these criteria, then shouldn't they for consistency's sake adopt an anti-abortion stance? After, is not a fetus human?
>
> DREDF strongly rejects Peter Singer's philosophy that human
> rights may be denied to some human beings and not others.
In which case, it can be argued that DREDF should take an anti-abortion stance.
I am puzzled by all this since it is my understanding that Marta takes a pro-choice stance regarding abortion, but the very logic of the arguments that DREDF uses against Singer (and which Marta seems to endorse) ought to them (and her) to adopt an anti-abortion stance.
Jim F.
________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.