[NYer]

Editorial

The Logic of Despair

National Catholic Register

Feb. 20-26, 2005

Why feature an extremist like Peter Singer on the front page of the Register?

Because he isn’t extreme at all.

The Princeton University ethicist has drawn a lot of attention because of his so-called cutting-edge views that dare to call into question the basic right to life of human beings who are already born. They say he dares to come to "tough" ethical conclusions about severely handicapped children and he spells out his thinking in concise logic.

Pardon us if we’re not impressed.

You don’t have to look far to see that Singer isn’t so unique after all — nor all that courageous.

Look at the last election. Presidential candidate John Kerry voted six times to keep partial-birth abortion legal and he almost won. In partial-birth abortion, a doctor induces labor, then snuffs out the life of a full-term baby while he’s being born. Former Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan called it "infanticide."

And new Sen. Barak Obama, the rising star in the Democratic Party, won in Illinois despite the fact that he had voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. That’s a law that would protect the lives of children who are born accidentally during doctors’ attempts to abort them. Nurses say they are usually killed today.

These legislators don’t just argue from the safety of a classroom that some babies don’t have rights. They actually strip the rights of the babies already in our midst.

Singer is helpful, though, because he spells out the consequences of the mainstream pro-choice movement. "In the modern era of liberal abortion laws, most of those not opposed to abortion have drawn a sharp line at birth," he writes. "If, as I have argued, that line does not mark a sudden change in the status of the fetus, then there appears to be only two possibilities: Oppose abortion or allow infanticide."

But he isn’t any more "cutting edge" than Cicero or Plutarch.

Cicero (106-43 BC) said "deformed infants shall be killed" and reported, "We drown children who at birth are weakly and abnormal."

Plutarch (ca. AD 46-120) wrote about how common infanticide was among the Carthaginians, pointing out that infants were killed "as if they were so many lambs or young birds; meanwhile the mother stood by without a tear or moan." Singer isn’t cutting-edge if you look at modern China, either. Their draconian one-child-per-family policy means that many children are aborted, or born and left abandoned to either die or be raised in orphanages. It also means that the country is disproportionately male. Being female in China is often a severe enough "handicap" to get you killed.

In a way, Singer isn’t any more cutting-edge in his thinking than women like the mother who was recently arrested in Denver for throwing her newborn baby into a dumpster.

Singer’s high-minded rhetoric about severely handicapped children might sound new, but it has all the marks of the same despairing philosophy that has appeared again and again throughout history.

Faced with children who will either suffer or cause others to suffer, our human nature very naturally loses hope. We can’t see beyond the immediate, physical circumstances. Without any firmly rooted principle of the dignity of every human life, it doesn’t take a doctorate for us to become child-killers.

The real cutting edge ethical code is the one that dares to say that every human being — no matter how weak or how ugly — has a right to life.

This morality has always been revolutionary. It was when the Didache, an early Christian document, was written between 85 and 110. Its teaching that "You shall not commit infanticide" and "You shall not kill a child by abortion" only gradually took hold as Christianity did. The protection of infants deepened and saw its full flowering in the laws of Europe alongside the rest of the achievements of Western Civilization.

It wasn’t until the 20th century that Europe began to embrace death again, with the rise of pagan fascists and atheist communists who feared that the weak would hamper the ascent of the strong.

Christianity’s core message is very different. It’s the same as Pope John Paul II’s favorite exhortation: "Be not afraid." Christians believe that God so loved us that he has spent several millennia trying to win our love — even suffering and dying in the fervor of his courtship. With such a God looking after us, why should we fear? And why should we judge which of us is worthier of God’s gifts than any other?

In a world marred by death, pain and suffering, infanticide is just more of the same old hopelessness. Hope is what’s radical and cutting edge. And it’s our duty to spread this Good News with the same logic and intensity as the philosophers of despair.

[NYer]

Page One Story

Hate the Song, Love the Singer

A Catholic Response to Peter Singer’s Position

 

by REV. THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, LC

Many of the ethical questions raised by Peter Singer in his Register interview have been addressed by the Church. The Register asked Rev. Thomas D. Williams, LC, an American moral theologian and dean of the Theology School at Rome’s Regina Apostolorum pontifical university, for his comments.

I think it is evident to anyone with even a rudimentary familiarity with Catholic moral teaching that Peter Singer’s ethical stance on nearly all contemporary life issues stands in direct opposition to the Catholic position. But since Singer has chosen to downplay those differences, I think it is important to highlight just how far removed his thought is from a Christian, and indeed classical understanding of human life, its inherent dignity and the ethical consequences stemming from this dignity.

I am sure that Register correspondent Robert Brennan is right in asserting that Peter Singer is "no monster." Yet civil people can come up with monstrous ideas, and even rational-sounding ideas can lead to monstrous consequences when carried out to their logical conclusion — just as Karl Marx led to Stalin and Friederich Nietzsche led to Hitler.

To Kill or Let Die

The first question to be addressed is Singer’s contention regarding the moral equivalence of active euthanasia and the discontinuance of extraordinary means of life support, permitted by Catholic morality.

Singer sums up the moral reasoning going on in both cases as an assessment of an infant’s condition leading to "a decision that it is better that life should not continue." He introduces the category of "quality of life" as the determining factor in the decision.

Yet from a Catholic perspective, it is never the case that one human being will look at another and decide: "It is better for you not to live."

Catholics understand human life is always good in itself, to be respected and defended. One thing is to be unable to prevent the death of another human being except by extraordinary means (which would make the person suffer uselessly) and to choose to forgo those means; another thing altogether is to decide that another human being should die and actively bring about his death. It is true that the end result (death) might sometimes be the same, but the human choices involved are radically different. Something akin to helplessly witnessing your child get struck by an automobile versus intentionally running her down.

Legal provisions for the killing of sick infants seriously compromise the common good and create a climate where the good of human life is put up for grabs. In this regard, the Netherlands certainly does not provide a model of a humane society. Despite idealistic talk of looking out for the best interests of the child, decisions to terminate life often stem from concerns with the difficulties and costs of caring for such a child. Why else would so many children diagnosed with Down syndrome be aborted, since these children live happy, fulfilled lives? On the other end of the spectrum, how else can we explain the migration of so many senior citizens from the Netherlands across the border to Germany to avoid being killed if they go to the hospital?

 

What Makes Us Human

As serious as this is, a more pernicious problem emerges from Singer’s reasoning. The rejection of the universal and equal dignity of human beings in favor of distinctions between one human being’s worth and another’s bears the seed of the greatest abominations. Slavery, racism, genocide and eugenics all stem from the same premise that some human beings are inferior to others and don’t deserve the same protection under the law. The criteria for evaluating "worth" might vary from case to case, but the underlying principle remains the same.

If human dignity and the basic rights that flow from it is not rooted in a universal human nature, but rather in the possession or exercise of certain "qualities," then in reality dignity (and rights) vary from person to person, according to intelligence, athletic ability, health, degree of self-awareness, etc. Thus, smarter people are not only smarter but superior and worthy of better treatment than the less intelligent. The distinctions Singer is willing to make between those who have a full right to life and those who "don’t have such a serious right to life" is downright frightening.

If "whether you happen to be a member of the species Homo sapiens or not" is irrelevant, I can only wonder why Singer thinks he should be treated differently from his dog. True, his dog might not be as intelligent, but nor does it make dangerous proposals that, if applied, would seriously jeopardize social harmony. The dog’s "utility" to the human community might be merely neutral, while his master’s could well be negative. If every human being needs to earn and maintain his right to life by proving the moral relevance of his particular existence, we have indeed reached moral anarchy and the tyranny of the strong over the weak.

 

Human Suffering

A final bone of contention concerns Singer’s understanding of human suffering. Since utilitarians believe that pain is the only real evil and pleasure the only real good, once suffering and pain become intense and there is no hope of betterment (no hope that at the end of pain there should be a greater pleasure), one should eliminate pain by eliminating life.

Singer believes that it is a question of "credo": If you are a believer, you will defend the sanctity of life. If you are a non-believer, you will be a utilitarian. Yet utilitarianism is unacceptable, even for a non-Christian, since it fundamentally misunderstands human good.

The only value animals are able to perceive is the pleasurable and the painful, and thus they flee pain and seek pleasure. Human beings, on the contrary, are able to discern values rationally; they perceive many values animals do not perceive: aesthetic values, intellectual values, moral values, religious values. … From here, man can and must establish an objective hierarchy of values. For example, the value of truth-telling ("do not tell lies") is a higher value than that of pleasure or pain ("even if you lose certain advantages or pleasures that you could obtain by a little lie").

Behind a smokescreen of apparent rationality, Singer’s proposals do not lead to moral progress but to the dehumanization of society. They couldn’t be further from the Christian understanding of the basic good of human life and the corresponding moral responsibility to uphold and defend it.

Catholic Ping - Come home for Easter and experience God’s merciful love. Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[NYer]

Orthodox ping!

[NYer]

Know your enemy!

[nickcarraway]

BUMP

[Cosmo]

"Some of what you are about to read might shock you. It might anger you. But read on with a seriousness of purpose. Singer is not merely a fringe figure. His views might not be completely mainstream, but his position in one of the most important academic institutions in the world makes it imperative that we pay attention to what he has to say."

This is precisely the problem with Peter Singer

[mike182d]

I need to go get some duct-tape real quick before my head explodes....

I dealt with Peter Singer's philosophy for four years in college and it was four years too many.

[ColoCdn]

I was in a philosophy class 14 years ago at CU (Yes, where Ward Churchill is wreaking havoc), and had to read "Practical Ethics" by this Aussie clown. He hasn't modified his radical philosophy of death and indignity towards the helpless.

His is a life truly not worth living.

[Tax-chick]

"In the modern era of liberal abortion laws, most of those not opposed to abortion have drawn a sharp line at birth. If, as I have argued, that line does not mark a sudden change in the status of the fetus, then there appears to be only two possibilities: oppose abortion or allow infanticide."

In this case, Dr. Singer (May God strike him a mighty blow with the grace of conversion and repentance!) is exactly right. With the scientific knowledge we know have regarding the nature of an unborn child, there is no middle ground.

[farmer18th]

When talking to Prof. Peter Singer, you don’t get the impression that you’re talking to a monster.

Even though that describes him precisely.

[sassbox]

although the article describes Singer's views as not mainstream, among academics, his views are the norm. I'm in a PhD program in philosophy and nearly every professor that does ethics here agrees with Singer. However, since they have not chosen to pursue the "public intellectual" path Singer has, no one pays attention to them and no controversy is generated when they teach a class or give a talk. Sadly, many of the grad students (ie future professors) agree with Singer too.

As a whole, I see our society going down the road of Singer's views. Witness the difficulty of passing Born Alive bills in blue states like Illinois, the light sentences given for infanticide, and the whole Terri Schiavo case.

[Odyssey-x]

Peter Singer is the public face of the deep ecologist agenda. Negative population growth via ignoring Africa's genocides and health issues, euthanasia, abortion, banning DDT, encouraging homosexuality, pornography and making child bearing more costly, encouraging people to not have children by promoting la dulce vida, and even some things that freepers would agree with like their global campaign to raise the marriage age are all part of the deep ecologist agenda.

[hocndoc]

Pray for Peter Singer and all those who are influenced by him and who, because they "think" this and "feel" that, kill our brothers and sisters, our children.


Dualism is laughable. If personhood is an aquired characteristic of a member of our species, then individual preferences, arbitrary judgement and the powers that make the difference between the life and death of each of us. We have historical and current examples that whenever the definition of human being is limited to less than all members of the species, the infringement of the right to life of more and more results. We end up with holocaust, with the Tuskeegee experiments and deaths of children in hospitals. The Netherlands proves that, literally, no one is safe once the State abandons its duty to protect life.

[Mr. Silverback]

If the monsters all looked like monsters, Satan would never get any work done...

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[TAdams8591]

I had this debate years ago with several people. Their concern was not normal vs. extraordinary means, it was for them quality of life. And in fact I debated this with someone this very day.

Essentially then in their minds if a person doesn't pass the "quality of life standard," it is morally justifiable to euthanize them whether or not they are on life support that is extraordinary or none at all.

One can see this reflected in the arguments of ordinary people today.

Interesting post. Thank you.

[Got a right to Life? . . Huh?]

Unfortunately, Singer is typical of the liberal professors teaching today in most of our institutions of "higher learning." The interview was a pretty shocking example of where moral relativism and secularism can lead the "intellectual" mind.

Conservatives have made some headway into the liberal media domination. K-12 education has the handicaps of being a government monopoly and union run. Something must be done to right the leftist imbalance at our universities and the monopoly in K-12 education. We can not continue to allow liberal education institutions to mold the political and moral ethics of our citizens.

[Jeff Blogworthy]

ping - save