Post #11: Singer's Stance on Abortion, Euthanasia, and Poverty
Post 11: What is Singer’s stance on abortion, euthanasia, and the issue of poverty? Offer an in depth summary and analysis. What do you think about what he is saying here?
Peter Singer is a utilitarian philosopher and writer who support the minimization of pain. He is also the author of Practical Ethics. In his book, Singer discusses many ethical issues including the most highly-debated topics such as abortion, euthanasia, and poverty.
Being considered as one of the leading modern day ethical theorists in America, Singer has an interesting stance on abortion. His take on abortion is not simply pro-life or pro-choice. Rather, he gives an in-depth view of the development of the fetus, especially the fetus’ central nervous system.
Singer opens the discussion of abortion by stating, “at 14 days, the first anatomical feature, the so-called primitive streak, appears in the position in which the backbone will later develop. At this point the embryo could not possibly be conscious or feel pain” (Practical Ethics, 137).
From the utilitarian viewpoint, abortion should only be carried out when the killing can be done as painlessly as possible. According to the excerpt above, Singer suggests that if a fetus cannot feel pain, then it is not yet a human because humans have capacity to feel, self-consciousness, etc.
Some other arguments that Singer has made include comparison of fetus to animals. Singer feels that since people kill animals for appetite, then the mother should not have the right to kill its fetus since fetuses and animals are alike.
Lastly, Singer says that a fetus is a potential person, and it is unjustifiable to say that a potential person should have the rights of a person. Here, Singer made another comparison between abortion with contraceptives: If abortion is wrong in depriving the world of a future person, then contraceptives are also wrong, too.
In the case of euthanasia, Singer made his argument by categorizing euthanasia into three major types: non-voluntary euthanasia, voluntary euthanasia, and involuntary euthanasia. Singer thinks that non-voluntary euthanasia is justifiable because the subject has never had the capacity to choose to live or die. Examples of include severely disabled infant and adults who has been profoundly intellectually disabled since birth.
Singer thinks voluntary euthanasia is also justifiable because it is an act of the person’s will. Voluntary euthanasia occurs when the subject requests to end his or her suffering by death. The last and only type of euthanasia that Singer does not justify is involuntary euthanasia, which occurs when the subject is capable of consenting to their own death but does not consent. Singer comments that involuntary euthanasia is morally wrong because it is against the subject’s will.
On the issue of poverty, Singer discusses the topic of whether the rich have the obligation to assist the poor. The forward argument supports that the fighting of poverty, which is something bad, should be a universal effort. The reverse argument says people should take care of themselves rather than helping others. After illustrating both viewpoints, Singer expresses his support for the forward argument by saying that helping the poor does not equate to not taking care of oneself if one has extra wealth to spare.
Then, Singer comments that people should leave the task of fighting poverty to the government. He comments that privately run charities allow the government to escape its responsibilities of dealing with poverty. On the last note, Singer questions if the obligation to assist is too high a standard for people to attain.
Personally, I agree with Singer’s view on both abortion and euthanasia. Indeed, people have not given much thought about the fetus’ responses to abortion. If abortion brings the fetus pain, then it is definitely wrong. I also like Singer’s categorization of euthanasia. However, I do not agree with Singer’s view on fighting poverty. His arguments, including the part of leaving the task to the government, are overly idealistic. Economics needs to be handled in response to the society’s changing demands and not a set philosophical rule.
Peter Singer is a utilitarian philosopher and writer who support the minimization of pain. He is also the author of Practical Ethics. In his book, Singer discusses many ethical issues including the most highly-debated topics such as abortion, euthanasia, and poverty.
Being considered as one of the leading modern day ethical theorists in America, Singer has an interesting stance on abortion. His take on abortion is not simply pro-life or pro-choice. Rather, he gives an in-depth view of the development of the fetus, especially the fetus’ central nervous system.
Singer opens the discussion of abortion by stating, “at 14 days, the first anatomical feature, the so-called primitive streak, appears in the position in which the backbone will later develop. At this point the embryo could not possibly be conscious or feel pain” (Practical Ethics, 137).
From the utilitarian viewpoint, abortion should only be carried out when the killing can be done as painlessly as possible. According to the excerpt above, Singer suggests that if a fetus cannot feel pain, then it is not yet a human because humans have capacity to feel, self-consciousness, etc.
Some other arguments that Singer has made include comparison of fetus to animals. Singer feels that since people kill animals for appetite, then the mother should not have the right to kill its fetus since fetuses and animals are alike.
Lastly, Singer says that a fetus is a potential person, and it is unjustifiable to say that a potential person should have the rights of a person. Here, Singer made another comparison between abortion with contraceptives: If abortion is wrong in depriving the world of a future person, then contraceptives are also wrong, too.
In the case of euthanasia, Singer made his argument by categorizing euthanasia into three major types: non-voluntary euthanasia, voluntary euthanasia, and involuntary euthanasia. Singer thinks that non-voluntary euthanasia is justifiable because the subject has never had the capacity to choose to live or die. Examples of include severely disabled infant and adults who has been profoundly intellectually disabled since birth.
Singer thinks voluntary euthanasia is also justifiable because it is an act of the person’s will. Voluntary euthanasia occurs when the subject requests to end his or her suffering by death. The last and only type of euthanasia that Singer does not justify is involuntary euthanasia, which occurs when the subject is capable of consenting to their own death but does not consent. Singer comments that involuntary euthanasia is morally wrong because it is against the subject’s will.
On the issue of poverty, Singer discusses the topic of whether the rich have the obligation to assist the poor. The forward argument supports that the fighting of poverty, which is something bad, should be a universal effort. The reverse argument says people should take care of themselves rather than helping others. After illustrating both viewpoints, Singer expresses his support for the forward argument by saying that helping the poor does not equate to not taking care of oneself if one has extra wealth to spare.
Then, Singer comments that people should leave the task of fighting poverty to the government. He comments that privately run charities allow the government to escape its responsibilities of dealing with poverty. On the last note, Singer questions if the obligation to assist is too high a standard for people to attain.
Personally, I agree with Singer’s view on both abortion and euthanasia. Indeed, people have not given much thought about the fetus’ responses to abortion. If abortion brings the fetus pain, then it is definitely wrong. I also like Singer’s categorization of euthanasia. However, I do not agree with Singer’s view on fighting poverty. His arguments, including the part of leaving the task to the government, are overly idealistic. Economics needs to be handled in response to the society’s changing demands and not a set philosophical rule.
posted by Mavis Chao at 10:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home