<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>Singer protest</title></head><body> <div><tt>From a lawyer friend in Berkeley-</tt></div> <div><tt>marta</tt></div> <div><tt> </tt></div> <div><tt>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) The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) is a national law and policy center dedicated to furthering the civil rights of people with disabilities. We vigorously disagree with much in the philosophy of Peter Singer and would strenuously object to changes in public policy based on these portions of his philosophy. Peter Singer attempts to make the case that certain members of society should not be granted the same civil rights and protection of the law as others.  Because he is speaking of a devalued segment of society, it is especially crucial that his arguments be subjected to careful scrutiny.  In the United States we have learned from history that those who argue that people seen as "less worthy" may be treated as second-class citizens - or worse - are all too often basing public policy on prejudice. Like the eugenicists at the start of the 20th century who claimed that society could not bear the genetic burden of people with cognitive disabilities, and like those in the middle of the 20th century who claimed that society could not bear the social burden of the "menace of the feeble-minded," Singer joins the ranks of those who claim that society cannot bear the economic burden of treating people with significant cognitive disabilities as full members of society. The erosion or outright denial of civil rights to members of society who are seen as less valuable than those in power has a long and sad history.  It has always been wrong in the past, and it is wrong now. According to Singer, to be ethical, we must treat all "persons"</tt></div> <div><tt>according to moral guidelines.  But not all humans are "persons" in</tt></div> <div><tt>his view. Singer claims that in order to be "persons" and to deserve</tt></div> <div><tt>moral consideration, beings must be self-aware, and capable of perceiving themselves as individuals 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)       DREDF strongly rejects Peter Singer's philosophy that human rights may be denied to some human beings and not others. Furthermore, Singer's use of ethics to guide public policy proposals also fails in a second way when the situation itself is unjust but individuals are doing the best they can to cope with it.  In these cases, he could address changing laws to correct injustices so that people with disabilities would have good lives, as his ethics define a good life.  But he hardly addresses these injustices. Singer's views on the potential quality of life for infants with disabilities provide an example.  Singer believes that killing infants may be a very ethical thing to do, particularly in cases</tt></div> <div><tt>where the infant is expected to face too many barriers to a good life - therefore, he argues killing such infants should be legal.  But many of the difficulties people with disabilities and their families face could be removed with legislation and other social change. While Singer claims to support this type of social change, in his work on the ethics of killing disabled infants he makes little distinction between the barriers imposed on people with disabilities by society and the inherent limitations of a physical or mental disability. Further, he ignores the large body of work by scholars around the world on disability from a social-model perspective. In doing so, Singer tacitly permits socially sustained barriers to justify infanticide rather than addressing the injustice of these barriers.  His work, therefore, encourages the cycle of injustice to continue. Perhaps Singer does not intend to encourage the continuation of this cycle of injustice.  But he does so, by encouraging the legalization of infanticide based on devalued characteristics before addressing the ways in which that devaluation is reinforced in our public life, and by encouraging a response to injustice that fails to address the injustice itself. DREDF gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Not Dead Yet in preparing this statement. -- ___________________________ Marilyn Golden Executive Committee, California Disability Alliance and Policy Analyst, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund mgolden@dredf.org</tt></div> <div> </div> <x-sigsep><pre>-- </pre></x-sigsep> <div>Marta Russell Los Angeles, CA http://www.disweb.org</div> </body> </html>