Post #10 - Peter Singer on abortion, euthanasia, and poverty

Peter Singer is a modern day philosopher whose theories on abortion, euthanasia and the issue of poverty have started many heated debates. Singer believed that the right to life is intrinsically tied to a being’s capacity to hold preference, which is the same as the being’s capacity to feel pain and pleasure. On the topic of abortions he argues that it is wrong to kill an innocent human being, the embryo is human and alive, and that killing the embryo is morally wrong. His argument for pro-choice gets a bit complicated because he argues that killing an innocent human being is not a wrong moral decision. Singer points out that abortion is not a question of the woman’s right to choose, since it is not a question of individual liberty. He is a utilitarian so he believes that a moral decision can only be made once the person has weighed the preferences of the mother against the preferences of the fetus. Singer defines a preference as anything that can be obtained or avoided and deals directly with the person’s satisfaction or frustration. Singer argues since a fetus up to the 18^th week can not feel satisfaction or experience suffering; therefore it does not have preferences. Comparing this lack of preference against the mother’s comes to the conclusion that it is the mother’s choice and getting an abortion is not morally wrong. He also explains that since an infant does not have the essential characteristics of a person, such as rationality, autonomy, or self-consciousness, they are not actually considered a person yet. Therefore, killing a fetus is not the same as killing a person.

Singer also has strong opinions on euthanasia, which are also called mercy killings or assisted suicide. According to Singer, euthanasia can be classified into three different types: voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is that which occurs under the consent of the person being killed. Singer brought up the Dr. Jack Kevorkian case which caused a lot of controversy in the 90’s. He built a machine which would help a person end their life with a flip of a switch. It was a quick and painless death with a drug that caused a coma stage then a lethal drug which ended the person’s life. Many patients chose to use this machine because it was a better choice than to suffer a prolonged death with cancer or Alzheimer’s disease. A person can make a written request for euthanasia in case of an accident or illness should leave them unable to express their decision to die. A preference utilitarian, like Singer, is in favor of voluntary euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia is when a person is able to give their consent to assisted-suicide but does not do so. They are either not asked or their decision to keep on living is ignored. Singer explains that the only way this type of euthanasia can be justified is if the person does not know the suffering they will be put through and then therefore have to deal with it until their natural death. Non-voluntary euthanasia is when a person is not able to make the decision between living and dying. Singer provided the excellent example of a baby’s suffocation leading to brain damage. This baby was connected to a respirator for 8 months when his father disconnected it and cradled him until he died. The baby was so brain damaged that it might not have even been able to feel suffering. If the baby lived, the family would have suffered the consequences for the rest of the baby’s life. Using Singer’s reasoning this type of non-voluntary euthanasia is morally just. Ending the baby’s life caused to least amount of suffering for everyone involved in the situation.

Singer’s stance on poverty is that anyone who makes a lot of money should donate part of their salary to the poor. Living in absolute poverty is very difficult for a person; therefore, anyone who can afford it should help alleviate some of this pain. He argues that once someone is living a comfortable life, purchasing increase comfort is not as morally just as saving another person’s life. He gives an example of a movie where a homeless Brazilian boy was taken to an adoption agency and the lady who took him received a thousand dollars for him. This lady then went and bought herself a new television with the money. She was then told that he was actually too old to be adopted and instead he would be killed and his organs sold. Singer compared this to the movie goers who after watching this movie went back to their wealthy lives. These wealthy individuals could have donated their extra money to an organization that would have fed homeless children in Brazil, just like the one in the movie. Singer also proposes that if you give up dining out for a month you can save a child’s life with that much money. He explains that an American household on average spends $30,000 a year on necessities. The rest of that families income could be used to help the world’s poor. Singer says that if we donate the money that we don’t need, we’ll be living a morally decent life.