Respond to two of your peers who may have an opposite viewpoint and explain what premises or part of their argument you disagree with (respectfully) and explain why exactly you disagree (again respectfully). If you cannot find someone with a different perspective than your own then respond by explaining why you agree with them. Explain the similarities and differences between your thinking on the topic.
My post:
I see Singer’s views as contradictory because he supports the right of all animals to live but denies the same right to disabled people. While he accuses humanity of speciesism and promotes consistent actions toward animals, he discriminates against humans based on ability (CC #42). He assumes that disability always means a lifetime of suffering and that people born with it are incapable of having a fulfilling existence. At the same time, he does not categorize animals based on how much they can enjoy being alive or what they can contribute to society. He advocates for animals simply because they are living beings, never wondering whether they can be a burden to others. This position should mean that all human life has the same worth, but Singer fails to follow this logical connection.
Singer brings up his mother as an example, noting how she would not have wanted to continue living with Alzheimer’s disease (ABC). However, there is a world of difference between consenting adults and infants when it comes to making such decisions. Singer wants to put a stop to the suffering of sentient beings, but he risks creating more suffering with his suggested approach (Sommers). If society chooses to euthanize disabled children, it will never adapt to help these children thrive. There will be no incentive to invest in life support and medical treatment or to create welcoming public spaces. In the long run, Singer’s approach can create a hostile world that refuses to embrace human diversity and sees disability as a flaw to be fixed. His intention to help disabled people can make their lives more difficult, drowning out their voices and taking away their opportunities.
Mayzin Yaqoub:
Yes, I think Peter Singer’s views can be seen as contradictory. While he advocates for reducing overall suffering, his support for euthanasia of disabled children raises questions about the consistency of his ethical framework. This apparent contradiction arises from the tension between his empathy-driven stance on animal rights, where suffering is a central concern, and his views on the rights and value of individuals with disabilities, where the notion of suffering as the sole defining factor is challenged.
Singer’s argument for euthanasia based on the quality of life for disabled individuals conflicts with his broader ethical stance on reducing suffering. This discrepancy highlights the complexity of ethical reasoning and the challenges of applying general principles to specific cases. It also brings into question the extent to which emotions, such as empathy for suffering, should guide ethical decision-making, especially when dealing with delicate issues like disability rights.
While Singer’s contributions to ethical debates have sparked important discussions on topics like animal rights and the moral status of individuals with disabilities, the perceived contradictions in his views underscore the need for nuanced ethical frameworks that consider diverse perspectives and account for the complexities of human experiences (CC#3).
Jed Ker:
Peter Singer’s views on animal rights and disability rights can indeed be perceived as contradictory, as they seem to diverge in their treatment of suffering and autonomy. According to Singer, the suffering inflicted upon animals in factory farming justifies abstaining from consuming animal products, as outlined in his book “Animal Liberation” (CC #3). He argues that the magnitude of suffering outweighs the benefits gained from animal products, advocating for ethical veganism or vegetarianism.
However, Singer’s stance on disability rights, particularly his controversial assertion regarding parents’ right to euthanize their disabled children, raises ethical concerns and appears inconsistent with his emphasis on reducing suffering (CC #3). While Singer argues that euthanasia may be justified in cases where a child’s disability leads to significant suffering for both the child and the family, many disability rights advocates challenge this perspective. They argue that disability does not inherently equate to suffering or a lower quality of life and emphasize the importance of valuing and supporting individuals with disabilities.
In evaluating Singer’s views, it’s essential to consider the complex interplay between ethics, emotions, and rationality. While Singer’s arguments regarding animal rights may resonate with individuals driven by empathy and compassion for non-human animals, his stance on disability rights highlights the challenges of balancing autonomy and well-being in ethical decision-making. Ultimately, whether one sees Singer’s views as contradictory may depend on their interpretation of suffering, autonomy, and the ethical principles guiding their moral reasoning.
Sources Used/Needed for the discussion board:
ABC. “Disability Infanticide.” 1 Aug. 2016, https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/disability-infanticide/10652336
Crash Course. “Crash Course Philosophy #42: Non-Human Animals.” YouTube, 17 Jan. 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3-BX-jN_Ac&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR&index=44
Sommers, Tamler. “The Limits of Moral Argument.” YouTube, 17 Dec. 2011, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuEm03Ko0J8
