I know this will not change your views, but think protesting a philosopher's arguments is counterproductive, even silly. Refuting them is something else. But if he's right, he's right, even if you make him drink hemlock before a howling audience of millions. It's not like protesting, e.g., Jeane Kirkpatrick (Reagan's UN Ambassador), which I did when she came to Michigan as a commencement speaker when I was there. I was protesting her policies, not her scholarly views. I once debated the racist and antifeminist philosopher Michael Levin. I thought that attacking the soundness and validity of his premises was the best way I could show disapproval of someone who was basically offering ideas intended to influence policy, but on similar terms to the way I offer my own ideas.
It will probably not make you feel better to know that I actually agree with most of Singer's views on personhood and whethe newborns have a right to life--from a philosophical point of view. Practically I think he neglects some important facts that make it impracticable to change policy and law, such as the convenvience of using birth as a rough marker for extending the protections of the law to individuals, a nd our strong feelings of revulsion at the thought of killing babies--something that obviously has a biological explanation. So I would not change our laws or policies to authorize killing newborns. But taht's not becaisethey have the things that give grownups the basis of a right to life. They aren't people. Wed just treat them as if they were.
I also disagree with you about the right to die. I think the philosophers who wrote an aminus brief to the S.Ct in the 9th Cir, case a few years ago were right on the moral;ity of it, if not the law. I think that the risk that some people may be imposed upon to be be killed without consent has to be taken into account, but so does the appalling suffering of some terminally ill and quite competent people who want to die a relatively painless and dignified death, and who might indeed be described as disabled, but who seem to get written out of your equation. However, I don't think we are going to agree.
jks
>Not Dead Yet doesn't feel it's academic:
>Who are we, and why are we protesting Peter Singer? . . . It is from this
>concern
>for justice that we find ourselves opposed to Peter Singer’s approach to
>public policy. For Singer makes policy suggestions about people with
>disabilities without ever directly addressing, much less designing
>proposals to solve, the injustice that disabled people face.
>Why would a civil rights group care about Peter Singer? Peter Singer
>attempts to make the case that certain members of society should not be
>granted the same civil rights or equal protection of the law as everyone
>else. Because he is speaking of a devalued segment of society, it is
>especially crucial that his arguments be subjected to careful scrutiny.
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com