Peter Singer, a controversial philosopher ensconced at Princeton, was on my mind yesterday, as we wound up our consideration of Utilitarianism. His radical view of defining humanity led him to declare that Alzheimer's victims are not human and could be euthanized morally.
HIs mother, it turned out, came down with Alzheimer's and was institutionalized. So this was brought up as hypocrisy on his part. His defence, apparently, was that his sister shared responsibility for their mother's care. (He implied that he would have followed through on his beliefs, if he had been solely responsible). The writer(s) of the Wikipedia article then go on to say that Singer only said it would be morally acceptable, not compulsory, to euthanize these kind of patients.
This is true enough, as far as Utilitarianism is concerned. There are no overarching rules about behaviour. Only the exact situation and the consequences of proposed actions determine the right thing to do. There could be a case where keeping one or more of these sufferers alive would serve some greater good for the humans. So, my concerns about his being a hypocrite are resolved in his favour. His espousing a monstrous philosophy while teaching from a prestigious position at a well-respected university, on the other hand, remains a grave concern.
Now on to Kant. Ugh.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment