Recently the Dallas Morning News ran an op-ed feature called ‘10 ideas on the way out’. The subtitle confidently proclaimed that by 2040 many of the things we take for granted will no longer exist. I quickly scanned the list to see if major league baseball’s designated hitter would be an idea that would not endure. Sadly, that did not make the list.
The list was a mixture of intriquing and frightening. According to these experts monogamy will be a quaint ideal from a less enlightened era and it will no longer be the norm. I am glad I will be dead before my wife finds that out. Another predicts the demise of the British Monarchy. But the one that rocked my world was seeing the number one item on the list penned by a man named Peter Singer. I believe he is one of the most dangerous people on the planet. That seems like a pretty bold statement because he is a rather average looking academician at Princeton University. He is ironically the Chairman of the Ethics Department at Princeton and his ideas are widely accepted by those with bigger brains than you and me.
Let me quote some of Mr. Singer’s predictions for the future about the sanctity of life. My thoughts are italicized.
“During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological and demographic developments. By 2040, (here comes a good part) it may be may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct.”
Since there is a good chance I will have checked out by 2040 I am considering forming a secret organization to maintain the “rump” of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists. Let me know if you would like to be a charter member of the “Rumps of the Know-Nothings”. For Monty Python fans we will be the knights who say no. But in all seriousness it is dismaying for Mr.Singer to dismiss all who believe in the sanctity of life as know nothings. I believe that Peter Singer knows a lot. I just believe he is wrong. Could he not extend at least that much courtesy to me and the other rumps? Continuing with Mr. Singer’s piece…
“When the traditional ethic of the sanctity of human life is proved indefensible at both the beginning and end of life, a new ethic will replace it. It will recognize that the concept of a person is distinct from that of a member of the species Homo sapiens, and that it is personhood, not species membership, that is most significant in determining when it is wrong to end a life.”
Who determines “personhood”? If it is always in the hands of the family you can get very different views. If it is in the hands of the government I shudder. Does a doctor determine “personhood”? I have a very personal stake in this debate. Surprisingly, so does Peter Singer. More on that in a moment. Singer makes an interesting concession that may be the future argument about the beginning of life.
“We will understand that even if the life of a human organism (note the terminology) begins at conception, the life of a person – that is, at minimum, a being with some level of self-awareness – does not begin so early.”
My cynical side reacts that if we took out everyone without a level of self-awareness we would thin the herd significantly. But the tacit admission (sort of) that there is no other logical point except conception for the beginning of life is interesting. The argument now becomes the elusive point at which the “organism” achieves “personhood”. And that is a frightening judgement to make apart from some standard.
Now for the personal side of the argument. Twenty years ago a daughter was born into our family. Katie was born with a birth defect that caused an absence of brain development. By Mr.Singer’s standards she was not a “person” because she could not achieve some level of self-awareness. According to Mr.Singer Katie should have been aborted or euthanized after birth (yes, he advocates that) because she had no potential for personhood. But the fourteen month life of Katie was an amazing blessing for our family. In retrospect I shudder at the prospect of aborting her life. Yet it might have seemed the right thing to do in the emotion of the moment. Katie’s inspiring story is told in full in When Bad Christians Happen to Good People. But my reaction to Katie’s life is just the emotional response of a religious rump…right? Let’s see what happens when Mr.Singer had to apply his theories to real life.
Peter Singer’s mother is suffering from Alzeiheimers. By his own definition she no longer has the measure of self-awareness that defines personhood. So how has Mr.Singer responded? Like a person who deep in his being believes in the dignity of life. He has poured thousands of dollars into her care when there can be no return for the greater good of society. That money would be far better spent on those who have societal value and not just, as Mr. Singer described, possessing species membership. This is money wasted in Singer’s ultilitarian worldview.
Peter Singer addressed the dilemma. “I think this has made me see how the issues of someone with these kinds of problems are really very difficult. Perhaps it is more difficult than I thought before, because it’s different when it’s your mother.” Now it is personal and Singer’s ideas don’t work. Peter Singer’s mother has value and deserves to be cared for until her last natural breath. Our daughter had value and deserved the same. That is my worldview. I can live with mine.
Jonathan
First of all, there is no excuse for Peter Singer to mud sling. While I am not going to advocate his views, I believe you have a misunderstanding of his views. In Practical Ethics, he makes it very clear that if the parents want the infant then infanticide is out of the question. Even if the parents do not want the infant and the infant is able to live a happy life (regardless of whether it can reach personhood), then infanticide is also out of the question because of adoption. Singer would not have advocated infanticide on Katie because (I assume) her parents wanted her.
One of the threats of Peter Singer’s views the combination of them being a lot more rational and self-consistant then many common views on morality, including those in academic circles, and the fact that the people that could really contribute in pulling his beliefs in the right direction just outright ignore him. Even with the misunderstanding, this post is a good start in that direction.
Steve Goss
Yo Dave-
Sign me up as a fellow rump.
To an extent Peter Singer is right about religious fundamentalists being hard-core know-nothings. Especially us evangelicals. As evidence, and a better explanation than I could come up with, I would point you to chapter 9, "What’s So Good About Evangelicalism?" and chapter 10, "When America Met Christianity – Guess Who Won?" in Nancy Pearcey’s book "Total Truth". The only problem is that by citing Mrs. Pearcey’s book I’ll probably be butted out of the group.
Robin Curry
Interestingly, I think that Mr. Singer is actually right in saying that ‘the concept of a person is distinct from that of a member of the species Homo sapiens’. It’s just that he goes on to define a rather constricting definition of ‘personhood’, whereas, as a Christian, I believe that the concept of a person is the soul – and it exists prior to conception and survives even death.
In some ways, this almost gives some credence to Mr. Singer’s almost flippant attitude about the sanctity of life on earth. I mean, as Christians we have to believe that life on earth is simply temporal and that these earthly bodies we inhabit as members of the Homo sapiens species are certainly not sacred. From dust we were created and to dust we shall return.
The difference, I think, is that because we believe that a person is defined not by a body or by some odd concept of self-awareness, but by a soul – a soul created by God, for God – that we can properly put in perspective what is truly worthy of sanctification, and that is God himself. Thus, if God is sanctified, and he created our souls as well as our earthly bodies, we must respect his sanctity and the sanctity of what he has created. Value is ascribed by the Creator. It is not our place to usurp God to determine a person’s value or usefulness in this form.
Good post, Dave! I always enjoy what you have to say.