November 30th 2002

  Buy Issue 2646

Articles from this issue:

COVER STORY: Free Trade: what's in it for us?

EDITORIAL: Let East Timorese refugees stay

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Medicare a 'sleeper' issue for Liberals, Labor

HUMAN CLONING: Research Involving Embryos Bill stalls in the Senate

STRAWS IN THE WIND: Pub with no beer / Sheep in sheep's clothing

AGRICULTURE: US free trade deal: will it help sugar farmers?

MEDIA: Bali "interrogation" photo sends wrong message

REFLECTION: Clyde Cameron on Archbishop Mannix and Bob Santamaria

LETTERS: Ted Serong (letter)

EDUCATION: Schooling SA-style: an exercise in planned mediocrity

EDUCATION: Dumbing down: the saga continues

ASIA: How many missiles are needed to make one China?

COMMENT: British media's royal flush

BOOKS: Rule Britannia: The Victorian and Edwardian Navy

BOOKS: Rethinking Peter Singer

Books promotion page

Rethinking Peter Singer

by Bill Muehlenberg

News Weekly, November 30, 2002
Poisoned gift to the world:

Edited by Gordon Preece

InterVarsity Press. Available from News Weekly Books.

"Since neither a newborn human infant nor a fish is a person, the wrongness of killing such beings is not as great as the wrongness of killing a person.

"...regarding a newborn infant as not having the same right to life as a person, the cultures that practised infanticide were on solid ground."

These are two of four quotes from philosopher Peter Singer that were featured in a quarter-page ad in the Australian newspaper during the 1996 Federal Election.

The Australian Family Association took out the ad because Peter Singer was running as a Green Senate candidate. Fortunately for the unborn, the newborn, the elderly and many other "non-persons", Singer received only a tiny fraction of the vote.

He now teaches at Princeton University, after a long career at Melbourne's Monash University. He has written over twenty books, and is regarded as a leading contemporary philosopher and bioethicist. He is famous for his advocacy of animal liberation, as well as for his callous view of human life.

This new book, edited by an ethicist at Melbourne's Ridley College, contains five important articles offering a critical assessment of Singer's philosophy and writings.

After an incisive introduction, Preece offers a close look at the man and his work in chapter one. While recognising the relative consistency throughout his writings, he points out the well-known inconsistency of his regard for his mother as she wrestled with Alzheimer's Disease. He rightly notes that on the basis of Singer's utilitarian and consequentialist outlook, he should have bumped off his own mother. But fortunately for her, "Singer is a better son and person than ethicist".

He shows how his universalised utility calculations are really a secularised version of the parable of the good Samaritan. But without the moral and theological framework which underlies the parable of Jesus, his system is not sustainable. Indeed, because Singer makes personhood a "special prize, not a humanly universal gift," he is unable to properly enact the parable, which recognises that every person is my neighbour.

Andrew Sloane's article looks at one especially nasty aspect of Singer's philosophy - his support of infanticide. Sloane points out that his case for infanticide is only successful if his ethical theory (preference utilitarianism) is successful. But he argues that it is not, but is in fact incoherent and inconsistent. It is "an impoverished, reductionistic theory" which denies any "ultimate meaning to the universe and human life".

In such a cold world, the argument for infanticide may make sense. After all, the newborn do not contribute anything to society, and are therefore expendable. The newborn may not have any utilitarian value, according to his own theory, but he has not successfully argued that his theory should be accepted and others rejected.

Graham Cole argues that Singer's critiques of Christianity are misguided, as they are based on caricature and straw men. He picks and chooses those portions of the Biblical account he finds offensive, but does not appeal to other passages which may act as a corrective or balance.

In a chapter on personhood and Singer's view on animals, Lindsay Wilson argues that Singer, while offering some helpful contributions to the debate, in fact cannot compete with the Biblical picture of animals and their worth. Singer's critique of "speciesism" - the idea that humans wrongly (in his view) consider themselves better than animals - is based on the idea that sentience (the ability to feel pleasure and pain) is what unites humans and animals. Because both humans and animals suffer, Singer says we should treat both respectfully, and not give special preference to humans, based on "outdated" concepts of personhood and human dignity.

Wilson argues that Singer's views on animals have major philosophical shortcomings, and that the Biblical picture, rightly understood, offers a better framework in which to respect (but not worship) the rest of the created order.

Preece then offers a concluding chapter on Singer's view on life and death issues, especially that of euthanasia. Singer has long argued that sanctity of life ethics should be replaced with quality of life ethics. The former, Singer rightly recognises, is bound up with the Judeo-Christian worldview, while the other is not. As an atheist, Singer prefers the latter viewpoint, arguing that the former can no longer stand up in a scientific age.

Two consequences flow from this. First, the Biblical concept of responsibility is replaced with the secular concept of autonomy. That is, instead of seeing life as a gift, which we are entrusted with and expected to be good stewards of, life is seen as something people earn and can forfeit. Secondly, instead of seeing humans as ends in themselves, they are treated as means to an end. Instead of having inherent dignity and worth, we acquire this by our social utility and functionality.

Thus instead of considering all lives as worthwhile and important, Singer considers many to be worthless and expendable, based upon his own criteria of what it means to be a person. In the end his views of personhood are reductionistic and demeaning. Which is why disabled groups have protested when he speaks, or why German audiences are less than thrilled when he shows up. They have been there and done that.

While all the chapters of this book are quite helpful, those by Preece and Sloane are especially strong. But every author (each one associated with Ridley College) helps to build an impressive case against Singer.

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am