Anyone agree with philosopher Peter Singer on life and animal rights?

Question

I was listening to a debate he took part in from Oxford (this was part of a podcast). He argues that no animal should be suffering and made to be food, that those who are terminally ill should have the right to humanely end their lives, and......that infants who are extremely ill or children who are developmentally disabled and extremely ill, should also be allowed to die as they wouldn't be able to have a practical life.

Now I disagree with that, on the grounds that how can one refuse to kill a chicken but kill a baby (albeit a sickly one) when it has no say in the matter?

Animals in Western societies have it better. There is the ASPCA which protects cruelty to animals, ESPECIALLY those bred for food. There are standards.

My other point: animals are not on the same level as humans are. They do not drive cars, they don't hold jobs, they are not an important part of our government. Sure, God entrusted us to take care of them, however, God considers us to be the "top of

the food chain" so to speak. Christ died for the sins of mankind, not animals.

Back to infanticide. If the kid was on life support and if there was no glimmer of hope, then the normal thing to do would be to "pull the plug," which is what is done in hospitals (they did it to my grandpa) when someone is gravely ill.

However, if there is even a hint that the kid may be able to live, even though it may not be a normal life, I'd give the kid a chance.

Answer 1

Well, these are clearly questions of ethics, and questions of this nature don't tend to get resolved to everyone's complete satisfaction, unfortunately. But I think it is important for everyone to consider for themselves what is right, and take into account what other people have said on the issue as well, so I laud you for doing so.

As far as killing sickly children, I think Kant had the best direction on this.

His idea of 'good' is whatever would be beneficial if everybody did it all the time. At first, being allowed to kill yourself when there seems no hope of retaining what you value would seem to be a good thing, but we can also pretty easily come up with examples of people who would have killed themselves if given the opportunity, but who instead went on to develop new values and live productive and beneficial lives.

Thus, because SOME people do live productive and happy lives and even the person themselves cannot really say whether they would be one of them, it would be bad if all sickly people were put to death because we would lose some productive and happy people. Kant would actually back it up even more strongly - if you can save some people, it is actually imperative that NONE should be allowed to die unless there is absolutely no hope for them whatsoever. Peter Singer is probably not seeing the big picture on this one.

I suspect he's not seeing the big picture on the other issue, either.

While it's a good thing to reduce suffering as much as possible, I don't think it is possible to entirely eliminate it. Even if we could all subsist on sunlight alone, we would be comsuming sunlight and using space that some other creature might use, and thereby making them suffer. The only way to avoid causing suffering altogether, I think, is to avoid causing ANYTHING - to cease to exist. Which sounds like a poor option to me!

Likewise, let's look at the other side of the coin. Sure, most cows are raised only to be eventually eaten, but during their lives they undoubtedly live much more comfortably than their wild relatives. They are free from pests, have no wants for food or water, and don't have have to worry much about predators other than us. It is in our interests to keep our farm animals as healthy as possible before they get the axe, and so in many ways they benefit from this.

This may seem like a hollow reward, but I wonder how many people would take the same offer - a life free of worries in exchange for only a few years of it. Given the number of people who starve to death each year, I sincerely doubt the number of takers would be zero.

Nor do I think Mr Singer really has any options, foodwise, if he wants to avoid suffering. Though we can't hear them scream, there is solid evidence that plants react to their environment and even warn each other of dangers. They obviously cannot cogitate about pain in the way we can, but given the very cellular nature of pain, isn't it a bit zoo-centric to assume they're incapable of experiencing it? If you can't eat plants or animals, then you haven't got much of a diet left!

Answer 2

The Reader's Digest Condensed Version: No.

Answer 3

While I disagree with Mr. Singer about animals, I see what his core value is - kindness. A severely ill child is doomed to live life in misery. When you consider a vegatate, it helps to remember Patrick Henry. Quote: "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to purchased at the chains of slavery?" Living life dependent upon others is to be their slave.