[PEN-L:32415] Re: Re: Re: Birds of a feather

["ken hanly" <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I intersperse comments after selected passages. We have had long discussions
about Peter Singer before. The discussions are in the LBO archives I believe
but it could be Pen-L. Just a few questions first for Doyle:

1) Do you agree that a woman has a right to abort. That is are you
pro-choice? If you answer is yes then:
    i) Does this right apply when the woman aborts because the fetus is
deformed or has some disabillity?
  ii) Does this right apply when the woman aborts because she wants a son
and it is a daughter or vice versa?
2) If you agree that a woman has a right to abort why is there not a right
also to kill the newborn? What is the big difference that creates such a
huge moral gap between the term fetus and the newborn.

I think that Peter SInger is one of the pre-eminent 20th century
philosophers in terms of bringing important social issues back into the
philosophcial arena and making philosophical discussion of these problems
important issues in public discussion. This is just a fact no matter what
you might think of his particular views.

Personally I think his arguments for a more equitable distribution of wealth
are sound and his critique of lifeboat ethics people such as Garret Hardin
are compelling. Also, his speciecism arguments are not easy to meet but are
easy enough to ignore and marginalise by epithet as Easterbrook and others
do without showing the slightest comprehension even of what the issues are.
I do not agree with some aspects of his arguments re infants with
disabilities.

Cheers, Ken Hanly
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doyle Saylor" <djsaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>I
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 7:55 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:32388] Re: Re: Birds of a feather


> Greetings Economists,
> Peter Dorman writes,
> There was an article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed about a year ago
> that was fair-minded, I thought, on Singer and his critics.  The man is
> not a monster...
>
> Doyle,
> "Writings on an Ethical Life", Peter Singer, Harper Collins books, 2000,
>
> page 163,
> We might think that we are just more "civilized" than these "primitive"
> peoples.  But it is not easy to feel confident that we are more civilized
> than the best Greek and Roman moralists.  It was not just the Spartans who
> exposed their infants on hillsides: both Plato and Aristotle recommended
the
> killing of deformed infants.   Romans like Seneca, whose compassionate
moral
> sense strikes the modern reader (or me, anyway) as superior to that of the
> early and medieval Christian writers, also thought infanticide the natural
> and humane solution to the problem posed by sick and deformed babies."
>
> Doyle,
> So is that what we ought to do Peter expose babies on the hillside above
the
> towns to show our moral superiority we've gained from an ethical insight?
>
COMMENT: Singer's point is that infanticide is not some unnatural, far out
kookie ethical notion but one that some societies as well as some eminent
philosophers have adopted. So are you saying SInger is not correct? What is
your evidence against him?

> attitudes.  But there are some questions that are more difficult.  Among
> them are questions concerning the treatment of infants with Down syndrome.
> ...
> "When Down syndrome is detected and abortion available, the overwhelming
> majority of women, in most countries in excess of 90 percent, choose
> abortion.  The fact that so many women carrying fetuses with Down syndrome
> choose not to give birth to the child surely tells us something about
their
> attitude to life with Down syndrome, and their desire to avoid, if
possible,
> being the mother of such a child."

COMMENT: Just what is your point that women who have fetuses with Downs
syndrome have no right to abortion?
>
You actually quote stuff from SInger but rather than analysing you
go on an emotional rant. So you feel he is a monster. At least you could
learn from him just as we learn from Plato and Aristotle who  would equally
be monsters to you I guess.