Singer's views

[Marta Russell]

>>  > Singer's calculus of "happiness" is that of a moron. There is no relation
>>>  between being a perfect object and happinesss.
>>
>>There are certainly a great number of maladies that can detract from human
>>happiness.  We've all endured our share, I'm sure.  However, this doesn't
>>even begin to touch upon Singer's strongest conclusion: entities with no
>>conception of self aren't persons.  To claim otherwise, one must make
>>arguments that suspiciously mirror the ones made by those who protest the
>>destruction of innocent embryos.
>>
>>-- Luke
>>
>
>Yes, that's part of why the abortion issue is so hard, 
>philosophically. But Marta's is a slippery slope argument. First 
>they came for the newborns, and I didn't speak up . . . . That 
>doesn't depend on denying that newborns aren't persons because they 
>lack a conception of--the future, isn't it, in Singer? not the self. 
>Personally I don't think they are coming for the newborns, so it's 
>mere philosophy to say that they would be morally on solid ground if 
>they were to do so. jks
>

No I don't think they are coming for ALL the newborns, just the 
disabled ones.  So I would take the stand that Singer knows that they 
are not coming for the newborns and has found a way to 
philosophically/ethically allow parents of disabled babies to kill 
them.  That's all.

Marta
-- 
Marta Russell
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.disweb.org