Singers Practical Ethics - Term Paper Example

Term Paper, Philosophy Topic: Singer’s Practical Ethics Introduction: Utilitarianism According to utilitarianism principles, the right course of action in any situation is the one that produces the best balance of good over bad consequences for all those affected by the action. Peter Singer in his book “Practical Ethics” writes, “The utilitarian will judge bad in some circumstances and good in others, depending on its consequences”(3). He has dealt with various burning problems which confront the society on the basis of his utilitarian theories and approaches. He is strong in his convictions about the utilitarian ethics. He argues, “As far as my underlying ethical views are concerned, some of my friends and colleagues will no doubt be distressed to find the countless hours spent discussing these matters with me that have served only to reinforce my conviction, that consequentialist approach to ethics….is fundamentally sound” (x). The society impacted by the materialist civilization, industrial and internet revolutions is, to some extent, responsible for the present day maladies afflicting the society, according to him and the basic values of humankind have gone haywire. Peter Singer’s concept of utilitarianism ensures the individual right and freedom to come to own conclusions, and he advises all not to be follow-the-leader type individuals. He writes, “We have to reach our own decision. The beliefs and customs we were brought up with may exercise great influence on us, but once we start to reflect upon them we can decide whether to act in accordance with them or to go against them” (6). His intended audience is the political leadership, economists, scientists, sociologists, intellectuals and who's who of the society. Animal Rights: Peter Singer is the strong supporter of animal rights. From the scientific viewpoint, he relies on speculative conclusions and absolute assumptions. He is against animal experimentation and argues for banning it totally. His arguments have something to do with his personal convictions and emotional repugnance of the whole exercise of torturing and killing animals. He equates the utility of human beings with that of animals and as such humans have no right to exercise control on the life of animals. He terms this distinction as “speceisism” and that is as bad as the practice of racism and sexism. He states that all animals feel pain and inflicting deliberate pain on them is an illegitimate action. Peter Singer clinches the issue by highlighting the physical responses of the animals when at the receiving end of the pain, including chemical and physiological responses to pain receptors. That animal cannot reason or talk is no issue for Singer. The point is it suffers. Singer’s argument is based on the solid grounds of scientific approach and it has the element of unassailable logic. He argues that some of the animals are more intelligent than the human babies and/or mentally retarded. Ethical considerations demand that such animals need to be excluded from biomedical research. Moreover, the onus of proving that the benefits of research are in tandem with the suffering and pain imposed on the animals, vests with the scientists. Will those conducting such experiments take that responsibility? Whether similar experiments will be conducted on human infants to decide the ethical status of the relative experiments? Singer’s argument is based on the premises that animals and humans have equal rights. But the critics of Singer stick to their basic stand that animals are not members of the moral community and it is the duty of all concerned to act in the manner that is supportive to the moral duties for the benefit of humankind. Peter Singer is a compulsive controversy creator. Controversy and finding its solution are like alternative beats of the same heart to him. He is the greatest defender of animal rights and equates their right to exist with that right of human beings. His ideal is nothing short of collective happiness of all animal life. This is a pure form of utilitarian philosophy. I entirely agree with the observations of Singer. The arguments of those who oppose him, lack commonsense and I am prepared to equate them with ferocious animals. For the motivated agenda of cruelty to animals, human being cannot play the triple roles of lawyer jury and the judge. Human beings have no right to give favorable judgment on human beings! That amounts to self-eulogy. Euthanasia-Taking Human Life According to Peter Singer euthanasia means “gentle or easy death”. To put it more softly, it is mercy killing. On perusing his ideas on the subject of mercy killing, one wonders whether he is the same intellectual, who pleads for the rights of the animals and is moved with the suffering of the animals. He forcefully defends euthanasia and advocates for its expansion to cover cases of infanticide and non-voluntary euthanasia. His arguments are shocking. He goes by the strict interpretation of utilitarianism, the ethical doctrine that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility. Singer mentions about his own versions of different types of euthanasia. The first one is voluntary, carried out at the request of the suffering individual as he is unable to cope up with the chronic, degenerative disease. This is sort of a suicide, and it is done with the intervention of a medical professional. But this goes against the Hippocratic Oath, and in tandem with that oath, a doctor is not supposed to harm any patient, even with his consent. The second type of euthanasia is involuntary euthanasia. In this case, notwithstanding the extreme form of suffering, the concerned individual does not wish to be killed. The patient still values his life, and as such killing him is nothing sort or murder. The third form is non-voluntary euthanasia. This ‘punishment’ is meant for the person who is too ill or too young. They are not aware what is being to them. Someone else decides the value of the person. The mercy killing of children under this category is hotly debated and Singer does not get much of a support in this area. Such killings are nothing but infanticide. One wonders whether he is in proper shape of the mind when he argues that killing of an infant cannot be equated with killing of an adult, as children are devoid of the qualities of autonomy, rationality and self-consciousness. These, according to Singer are the significant qualities of a human. By killing such children the parents will be absolved of their unpleasant responsibilities. Next, they can think of a healthy child which will fetch lots of happiness! He compares this type of killing to abortion of a fetus. Thus, Singer treats babies as replaceable commodities and gives the green signal for the death for a baby if it is beneficial to parents and they have the right to make such a decision. Singer’s views on this subject are disgusting; I wish his parents should have availed that option as soon as Singer was born! Peter Singer has been compared to Adolph Hitler for his views. He is the Professor of Biomedical Ethics, and his primary job is to assist the students to define what is right and wrong to enable them to do what is right in the treatment of the patients. His radicalism has created a public furor and the usual controversy that follows him when he talks on any subject. One wonders whether he is a philosopher or a butcher when he asserts that it is tolerable and even appropriate to euthanize those who are terminally ill and those having no consciousness left. According to him it is fine to terminate the lives of handicapped babies. His objective in such actions is to prevent further suffering for such beings. This viewpoint has been strongly resented and protested as unethical by institutions that take care of the handicapped individuals. Singer supports the autonomy of an individual. An individual has the maximum right of his life, whether to live enduring the suffering or seek a peaceful termination of the life-force. What about the miracle cures of patients, when doctors give up all hopes? Singer has a meritorious reply for this argument. He says, once a person agrees to end the life, in effect he has agreed to forfeit all the related benefits and the number of persons surviving is negligible. His stands for other forms of euthanasia like involuntary killing and non-voluntary killing (mercy killing) which are stoutly opposed. Singer respects the oath, but solidly supports the autonomy of an individual and even in case of terminal diseases, the death is not certain. The concerned individual may survive. Abortion Singer arguments on abortion are based on three premises. Firstly, it is wrong to kill an innocent human being; secondly, a human fetus is an innocent human being and thirdly it is wrong to kill a human fetus. The contention is about the second premises whether the fetus is a human being and when the human life begins. An abortion, in effect, does not take place if there is no life. The issue related to beginning of life is a contentious one, over which there is no unanimity amongst even with the community of scientists. The dividing line between the newborn baby and the fetus is yet to be clearly demarcated. Singer categorically states that infanticide should be legal, and this is nothing but the fascist mentality. The community of elders attacking the community of children! His contention is a child does not own the right to life until it knows what awareness is. That stage according to him is about three years. But to challenge the adverse reaction, he is willing to bring down the limit to one month. According to him, the potential to become a person, does not give the right to life. He further argues that the population of the world is expected to touch more than nine billion by 2050, from the present level of six billion. There is going to be tremendous strain on the natural resources on Planet Earth. On the moral side of the argument, Singer is the total loser. He wants that arguments for or against abortion need to be based on the preferences of a woman against the preferences of the fetus. This is his utilitarian calculation. Whether the fetus causes frustration or gives happiness to the woman is the moot point raised by Singer. The fetus has no say in the matter; it does not hold any preferences at all. As per the utilitarian point of view, a woman’s preferences are unchallenged and as such it is perfect for her to go for abortion, even by moral considerations. On religious grounds, Singer is accused of ignoring traditional values of sanctity of life. Singer strongly opposes this criteria and asserts that contemporary bioethics have no place for such outdated and unscientific approach. CONCLUSION Singer’s views are highly controversial on the subject of termination of life. He seems to be an individual full of contradictions. His utilitarian stand on many issues is softer than the cotton ball and harder than the diamond, and at times it baffles the definition, as in each issue he sees a new horizon, and takes contradictory stances. He is a passionate philosopher and a die-hard medical man. His approach of ‘cruel kindness’ is mind-boggling! He contends that evolution of human society demands support for his utilitarian points of view. His stand on consideration of interests of others has nothing new to reveal; such an approach is the heritage of the mankind since time immemorial. He contends that the deep analysis of the issues demands attention and acceptance of a broader utilitarianism. Singer thinks like a perfect philosopher in the spiritual sense of the term, when he argues that living the ethical life is more satiating than looking for material gains. On the other hand morality and compassion seem to have no place in his utilitarian theories and his stand on terminating the life force of babies is demonic and weird. Work Cited Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Print. Read More