Over at the Chronicle of Higher Education, Tom Bartlett links to Peter Singer’s take to the controversy over a recent paper arguing for the ethical acceptability of infanticide. While Singer doesn’t offer anything terribly new or shocking (by his standards) in the way of moral argument, he does disgorge an interesting lament:
I expect that it is because the authors saw their article as a contribution to a discussion that goes back 40 years, that they [the paper's authors] were taken aback by the virulence of the reaction to it, and especially by the death threats they received. Of course, 40 years ago no articles were published online, and there were no pro-life Web sites, so since that time it has become much easier to stir up opposition to articles published in academic journals.
The moral status of newborn infants is a real issue, and it is proper for academic journals to publish articles that, like this one, discuss it in a serious and well-reasoned manner. People who wish to defend the traditional view of the sanctity of all human life should respond to the authors’ arguments, not by mere abuse. And it is ironic that some seek to “defend” the sanctity of human life by threatening to kill those who question it!
That last point, of course, is worth emphasizing, although few in the pro-life movement would disagree with it–the movement has been an almost entirely peaceful force working through prayer, argument, and cultural engagement . The few thuggish outbursts that have cropped up have come from ‘lone wolf’ individuals, and have been roundly condemned by the mainstream pro-life movement.
Nevertheless, what’s surprising about Singer’s response is not necessarily his position on infanticide (which, at this point, is well known), but the academic insularity it exudes. He appears to be genuinely bothered that a paper arguing there should be no ethical taboo against killing a newborn baby is fomenting “virulence” among the general public. If only the grown-ups who run academic journals were left alone to “discuss it in a serious and well-reasoned manner,” why, the controversy would be practically nonexistent.
These are standard academic tactics. And it must be admitted that this a perfectly valid defense mechanism in many circumstances–in fact, it cuts to the heart of a university’s very existence. If a certain critical distance cannot be achieved from the heated political and cultural issues du jour, education cannot truly occur. We need people and places where dispassionate assessment is a way of life. But this kind of distancing becomes problematic–even deceptive and malicious–when it’s deployed as a buffer against all comers, or used to shield truly insidious arguments from basic moral evaluation.
When proceduralism and the value of “discussion” triumphs over an ultimate concern for truth, these sometimes-noble words become small, bureaucratic dithering unconnected to reality, and drawing any kind of boundary becomes impossible. Thus even literal baby-killing, a surreal Swiftean punchline to common folk, becomes another legitimate possible “contribution.”
As noted before (here and elsewhere), the ethicists who published this paper are not members of any parliament or court, and no one expects the immanent legalization of infanticide. If anything, the attention the paper is attracting puts supporters of legalized abortion on the defensive by challenging their underlying rationale and highlighting the difficulty of classifying life as worthy or unworthy of protection. But what is at stake, at least right now, is a challenge about the validity of discourse. “Agenda-setting” is a term which refers to the media’s real power, and, in this case, it’s the academy’s prerogative, too. In 2006, a Harvard president was pushed out for statements that contained the vaguest whiffs of sexism. The president of Iran is no longer welcome to “engage” with Columbia’s campus. So why do some of the gatekeepers of academic discourse (Peter Singer, but also the editor of the journal, who has defended publishing the piece in much the same language) feel compelled to passively endorse this argument by granting it a much-coveted admission ticket to the hallowed hall of legitimacy?
March 6th, 2012 | 2:18 pm
Very much agreed. It’s absolutely the case that certain topics or conclusions are simply not “live options” for academia, and are ruled out-of-bounds without further discussion. (I’ve tried to imagine the response I would get from the JME if I submitted a high-quality paper arguing for the legitimacy of killing ethicists who argue for the legitimacy of killing infants.) I suspect that what has angered people about the JME article on infanticide (and the JME’s defence of its publication) is that most folks would have assumed that “it’s OK to kill babies” is one of those conclusions that could be safely ruled out a priori, as it were, without any need to discuss it or even to legitimize it by discussing it: and they’ve been shocked to realize that it isn’t.
March 6th, 2012 | 2:59 pm
“So why do some of the gatekeepers of academic discourse (Peter Singer, but also the editor of the journal, who has defended publishing the piece in much the same language) feel compelled to passively endorse this argument by granting it a much-coveted admission ticket to the hallowed hall of legitimacy?”
Singer answers this question: the moral status of infants is a legitimate and important moral question. We may wish it were otherwise, but Singer can point to current practices (including, inter alia, the legal and cultural acceptance of abortion and the widespread practice of laws and sentencing treating infanticide with comparative leniency) that raise the question.
A couple of other points. Singer’s is surely not suggesting that the judgments of moral philosophers should be insulated from the purview and judgment of lay persons. Rather it’s that there’s no place in any of it for the abusive responses controversial moral arguments routinely provoke.
Lastly, there is some justice to the charge of academic double standards. There’s work to be done in the academic world on that score.
March 6th, 2012 | 4:11 pm
Nevertheless, what’s surprising about Singer’s response is not necessarily his position on infanticide (which, at this point, is well known) . . .
If it’s so well known, what is it?
March 6th, 2012 | 4:40 pm
I think part of the reason for the outrage is that there is a growing sense that there are no longer any real moral boundaries that we can count on. Nothing, really nothing, is held to be sacred or beyond the pale for “serious” “ethical” consideration.
People who call themselves ethicists are arguing in favor of murdering babies. Those who used to have status of claiming universal protection that would make demands even upon strangers are now opendly discussed as mere fodder to be deliberately disposed of for the wishes of adults.
Even 15 or 10 years ago, no one could imagine that parents would be forced to stand by and let their handicapped daughter being deliberately starved to death before their eyes, with the court system and doctors overseeing and enforcing the matter. But Terri Sciavio’s case, no matter what the “experts” have to say about it, was a horror show for people who could identify with the urge of parents to care for a sick child. I don’t want to re-open that can of worms, but let’s just say it was an education to normal people that medical and legal experts can be extremely dangerous to the most vulnerable people in the world.
Also, as I noted before on this web site, killing babies is a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with medicine, nor is there any reason in the world to suppose that doctors have some kind of special insight or expertise (we hope) into killing babies that differs from that of any other human being. So to claim that this is a proper topic for the Journal of Medical Ethics to explore is itself mystifying. Why not the Journal of Plumbers Ethics, or the Journal of Accountant’s Ethics? I would expect that even the Journal of Mob Hitmen’s Ethics would have more insight (and probably more humanity) about killing babies than medical ethicists have.
Where will it end? I think that’s why people are no longer willing to sit on their hands as the experts work these things out for us. We’ve seen how that works out before.
March 6th, 2012 | 5:00 pm
One should begin these criticisms of Peter Singer by first conceding that Singer’s undeniable contributions to ethical thought and progress probably surpass any writer here at First Things.
In 1971 Singer published an argument that has since moved a lot of people–academics and otherwise–to think about global poverty. Check out his ongoing work on that front: http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/. Since the publication of Animal Liberation (1975) Singer has also forced a generation of people to confront the suffering we inflict upon non-human animals, often through our poorly considered institutions and practices. It’s not an exaggeration to say that Singer helped to create a movement.
Singer, by the way, is about as far from insular as an academic can get. Conservatives generally need to get a better picture of the man. Start with his intellectual autobiography found in the beginning of Singer Under Fire (Open Court: 2009).
March 6th, 2012 | 5:09 pm
One should begin these criticisms of Peter Singer by first conceding that Singer’s undeniable contributions to ethical thought and progress probably surpass any writer here at First Things.
Sure. – if by “ethical progress” you mean defending killing human beings (babies, handicapped, terminally ill) while protecting animals from being killed. And also defending having sex with animals. Progress to be sure.
March 6th, 2012 | 5:15 pm
[...] First Things, Matthew Cantirino discusses Peter Singer’s reaction to the strong reaction to a recent essay arguing in favor of infanticide. Nevertheless, [...]
March 6th, 2012 | 5:36 pm
“One should begin these criticisms of Peter Singer by first conceding that Singer’s undeniable contributions to ethical thought and progress probably surpass any writer here at First Things.”
Question begging at it’s finest. Progress by what standard?
March 6th, 2012 | 5:52 pm
Oh, and even if it were true that Singer had contributed more to ethical thought and progress to than any of the contributors here, that does not mean that no one here has the right to criticize his views. To claim otherwise is falacious.
March 6th, 2012 | 6:54 pm
Exactly. There is no basis for morality with atheism, which reduces morality to “Might makes right.” It’s right because Caesar said so. End of discussion.
Our government has gone from being one the purpose of which was to protect our inalienable rights, and the legal system of which was based upon the “laws of nature and nature’s God,” to an atheocracy under which there can be no such thing as the God-given, inalienable rights of humanity. Whatever unnatural depravity the godless social engineers can’t convince the public is their “right” through propaganda, they arrange for godless judges to impose upon everyone, even overruling the will of the people clearly expressed by referendum if necessary.
March 6th, 2012 | 8:14 pm
One should begin these criticisms of Peter Singer by first conceding that Singer’s undeniable contributions to ethical thought and progress probably surpass any writer here at First Things.
Sure. – if by “ethical progress” you mean defending killing human beings (babies, handicapped, terminally ill) while protecting animals from being killed. And also defending having sex with animals. Progress to be sure.
People like him do at least have the power make good people realize that they can’t just sit back and assume the “experts” can be trusted.
Sometimes, just like alcoholics have to hit bottom before they can recognize they have a problem, societies do too.
Only a few years ago, I just assumed ethicists were good people, simply because they were ethicists (hence ethical).
By being so odious that ordinary people are literally shocked out of complacency, Singer is doing good, albeit in a sick and backwards sort of way.
Whether it is enough to outdo the harm, I don’t know. But obviously we are going to keep careening toward ever greater human rights violations until the majority of normal, decent people say ENOUGH! – and mean it.
It amuses me no end that so many pro-choice people insist that “after birth abortion” must be a pro-life plant. They wish it were so.
March 7th, 2012 | 3:38 am
Over fifty years ago now, Miss Anscombe pointed out the cardinal weakness in “modern moral philosophy.”
“In present-day philosophy an explanation is required how an unjust man is a bad man, or an unjust action a bad one; to give such an explanation belongs to ethics; but it cannot even be begun until we are equipped with a sound philosophy of psychology. For the proof that an unjust man is a bad man would require a positive account of justice as a “virtue.” This part of the subject-matter of ethics, is however, completely closed to us until we have an account of what type of characteristic a virtue is – a problem, not of ethics, but of conceptual analysis – and how it relates to the actions in which it is instanced: a matter which I think Aristotle did not succeed in really making clear. For this we certainly need an account at least of what a human action is at all, and how its description as “doing such-and-such” is affected by its motive and by the intention or intentions in it; and for this an account of such concepts is required.” [Philosophy 33, No. 124 (January 1958)]
No one, so far as I know, has risen to that challenge. Until we do, the discussion of particular problems in ethics will be wasted labour, for we have no common language in which the discussion can take place.
March 7th, 2012 | 10:09 am
Can anyone here give a capsule summary of what Peter Singer’s current views on infanticide are? No? I didn’t think so.
March 7th, 2012 | 10:40 am
David, his views are extremely well known, and the fact that no one has mentioned them is because it’s practically common knowledge.
He believes that there’s nothing inherently wrong with killing infants because they can’t really be harmed by killing them – they don’t yet have a consciousness of themselves or desire and so can’t experience harm. The only thing that’s “wrong” about it is the harm that might be done to their parents, who will be sad about the loss of their infant.
However, if the life of the child is a “harm” to the parent – for instance because the infant is handicapped – and also because they are unlikely to have another child who would make them happy because of the burdens of taking care of the handicapped infant – then there is nothing wrong with killing the infant.
It’s all utilitarianism – he just adds up the supposed harms and subtracts foregone benefits (the child they won’t have because of the handicapped kid) and says that there’s neither a harm nor a benefit in killing the infant, and comes up with the obvious result that killing handicapped infants is A-ok.
March 7th, 2012 | 10:53 am
I would add to Sallyr’s summary that Singer thinks that reasonably healthy infants should not be killed even if the parents don’t want them, because others might be made happy by adopting them. This is one morally significant difference between abortion and infanticide on his view. It’s only in those cases where the the quality of life of the infant is very low (they are suffering and expect only more of the same for however long they live for example) and/or no one wants them that infanticide would be an option.
March 7th, 2012 | 11:22 am
“I would add to Sallyr’s summary that Singer thinks that reasonably healthy infants should not be killed even if the parents don’t want them, because others might be made happy by adopting them.”
Yes, but even this makes the life of the child dependent on the wishes of adults. If no one wants the kid, as far as I can tell for any reason at all, then it’s ok to kill them. The main idea is that there is nothing inherently wrong with killing the baby — only outside factors determine whether it’s ok or not.
He uses the example of handicapped kids, but if you’re ok projecting the kid’s suffering forward, then why not also project the suffering of an ugly kid, or a kid with “low socio-economic prospects” forward?
March 7th, 2012 | 11:32 am
To be fair, Singer doesn’t deny that fetuses and infants can be harmed in a morally significant way:
“After eighteen weeks of gestation, the interests of the fetus in not suffering should be taken into account in the same way that we should take into account the interests of sentient, but not self-conscious, nonhuman animals.” (Practical Ethics, 2011).
March 7th, 2012 | 11:46 am
Well, yes, the comparatively lesser worth of infants is the core idea. His point about adoption is to suggests that his views wouldn’t license wide spread or frivolous use of infanticide.
Regarding your second question I suspect he would answer 1) the suffering intrinsic to life as an ugly kid doesn’t rise to the level that most of us would judge that life not worth living and 2) there are better remedies to the suffering of poverty, which can be relieved short of killing people.
A bigger problem here for Singer is sex selective abortion, which predictably he wants to oppose. It’s hardly clear that he’s given himself the resources to so so however, and obviously sex selective infanticide presents the same challenge. In fact I have to wonder if the authors of the ‘post birth abortion’ paper acknowledge that question.
March 7th, 2012 | 12:08 pm
About sex selective infanticide: I wonder if Singer could, on utilitarian grounds, argue for legal prohibitions against the practice even if his preference utilitarianism doesn’t disfavor a particular instance of sex selective infanticide when viewed in isolation.
March 7th, 2012 | 12:44 pm
“I wonder if Singer could, on utilitarian grounds, argue for legal prohibitions against the practice”
That’s exactly what he does, and in so doing reveals in my view everything that’s wrong with utilitarianism. That kind of argument simply assumes sex selective abortions have negative utility in the aggregate, but you can bet dollars to donuts you’ll see zero evidence provided to show this is actually true. In fact, you’ll find no explanation of what the standard is by which we could even make such a judgment.
March 7th, 2012 | 1:12 pm
The very discussion of which babies it’s ok to murder is itself so sickening that I find it hard to engage with the system of thought that would encourage such a discussion.
Here’s my thought. It’s wrong to murder anybody, regardless of all the good you think you are accomplishing by murdering them. Hoary, old-fashioned, lacking in nuance. Guilty as charged.
March 7th, 2012 | 1:21 pm
Right, but my impression is that, at the end of the day, Singer wouldn’t be so bothered by this issue. I’d expect him to be happily neutral about this issue if indeed the utility of sex selective abortions looks to be a wash in the aggregate. He’s quite willing to strike out against received opinions when his principled grounds clearly require it. That said, we might also expect Singer, the activist, to be somewhat inclined to pick his battles by the same utilitarian calculus.
March 7th, 2012 | 2:58 pm
David, his views are extremely well known, and the fact that no one has mentioned them is because it’s practically common knowledge.
sallyr,
Charles Camosy, the Catholic bioethicist who is writing a response to the paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics is also working on a book about Peter Singer, and he said over on dotCommonweal recently,
This is different from much of what has been said above.
By the way, let’s not pretend that the commandment was “You shall not kill.” It was “You shall not murder.” Deciding who may be killed and who may not is as old as the Ten Commandments themselves. The Old Testament is filled with commands to kill people (e.g., witches).
March 7th, 2012 | 3:20 pm
Ancius, the thing is he bothered by it, and he’s not neutral. I think his vaunted willingness to go against received wisdom is tempered by his political views.
Sallyr, here’s the thing. Peter Singer did not wake up one day and decide he had a problem with babies. He is asking these questions because they arise out of values and judgments that many people–including many people who are pro-life and eminently decent–are already hold to. It would take a while to spell all this out, but Singer makes the case that we in fact routinely make quality of life judgments, that we do so on the basis of things like cognitive functioning, and the we can be led to judge some kinds of life as not worth living on this basis. It’s on the basis of those judgments the reaches his conclusion, and that is why people find him compelling. It might be reassuring to conclude “only monsters think this way and thank goodness I’m not a monster”, but it’s really not that easy.
It is well worth going through his line of reasoning to see exactly where and on what basis we can affirm the value of lives he would argue we should discount.
March 7th, 2012 | 3:20 pm
Has anyone considered whether the article published by these two academics, Alberto Giubilini and Francesa Minerva, should be classified as hate speech?
Do not the arguments displayed in the article reveal a reasoning that is ageist and ableist in its orientation?
For that matter, aren’t Mr. Singer’s arguments against very young human beings a form of hate speech? In his book Animal Farm Mr. Singer did not need to make the point that very young humans were equivalent to animals in their capacity to have “interests” in order to make his point that “human” society should have more concern for animals. Isn’t that line of argument called a non sequitur?
These kind of arguments by Singer et al have no redeeming academic worth. They crassly incite hatred towards the unborn and very young human beings. They simply try to disguise this hate speech by finding altruistic reasons to hate!!! Everyone knows they are mere provocateurs simply trying to make a name and a bank roll. They should not be treated as serious academics despite the fact they may have a high IQ.
March 7th, 2012 | 3:29 pm
Animal Liberation = Animal Farm
March 7th, 2012 | 4:15 pm
This is different from much of what has been said above.
So, basically, when you asked for someone to define his views in a nutshell, you were trying to set someone up?
I would have thought the reason you asked is because you did not know (that is why I did not answer: because for you to look it up would be more accurate than to rely on my memory). But I am dismayed to realize that if I had answered, it would have been a test: you would be reading my answer for the sole purpose of finding a way to prove me wrong.
Peter Singer has upset people because he makes the suggestion that killing babies is justifiable and even a good thing. Testing people on the details does not change the fact that what he has said is outrageous and provocative (because it requires overturning the idea that life is sacred, in favor of establishing that human beings can and should decide that some lives should not be entitled to basic and fundamental human rights).
March 7th, 2012 | 4:48 pm
“Singer’s original views supporting infanticide (somewhat inconsistently, in my opinion) were about neonates with serious medical problems.”
That is exactly what I said in my summary above. Do you think a neonate is not an infant? Or that “handicapped” is not a “serious medical problem”? The same set of reasons can be extended to other situations that equally present both potential suffering and happiness.
Tristian: It is well worth going through his line of reasoning to see exactly where and on what basis we can affirm the value of lives he would argue we should discount.
Yes, I’ve both read and taught his books. I understand that he equates killing and failure to aggresively treat as being morally equivalent. He sees no morally important difference between intention and foresight. There are many related arguments we could go into. I didn’t think this was the forum to go into great detail about why I have so concluded. I just think he’s wrong in his arguments and conclusions. Because I do not list all of those reasons in a blog comment box does not mean that I have not thought through and considered them.
March 7th, 2012 | 6:15 pm
That is exactly what I said in my summary above. Do you think a neonate is not an infant? Or that “handicapped” is not a “serious medical problem”?
sally rogers,
I did not quote Charles Camosy for the first part of what he said, but for the second:
March 7th, 2012 | 7:11 pm
where did I discuss his legal views?
March 7th, 2012 | 8:03 pm
David, are you citing a blog post comment as some kind of authority on the views of Peter Singer? I’ve read some of his work and never saw him say much about the law. He’s an ethicist not a lawyer.
The only thing I’ve found on line about this supposed legal concession is a report on something he said at a conference last year. According to Wesley Smith’s account, this was nonot a chab
March 7th, 2012 | 8:07 pm
Oops
Not a change in principles but in practical applications.
http://www.humanlifereview.com. search for infanticide must be combatted carefully. By Wesley Smith
March 7th, 2012 | 9:21 pm
Slats – here – http://www.humanlifereview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=122:infanticide-must-be-combatedcarefully&catid=55:2010-fall
And anyways its the disability rights movement who have the best book on Singer. He likes to invite them in as guest lecturers to his classes to answer his claims that it would have been just peachy to kill them off as infants. It’s all very nice. Makes me want to make him a blueberry pie. Bless his heart.
March 9th, 2012 | 12:17 am
David,
From an on-line Q&A with Prof. Singer in the Independent, September, 2006.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/peter-singer-you-ask-the-questions-415524.html
Would you kill a disabled baby? KAREN MEADE, Dublin
Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion. One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby.
Interview in the Independent, July, 2004.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/peter-singer-some-people-are-more-equal-than-others-6166342.html
He continues, “All I say about severely disabled babies is that when a life is so miserable it is not worth living, then it is permissible to give it a lethal injection. These are decisions that should be taken by parents – never the state – in consultation with their doctors.” This is, he believes, already happening. “What do people think amniocentesis and the selective abortion of Down’s Syndrome foetuses are? All I am saying is, why limit the killing to the womb? Nothing magical happens at birth.” It is a small step, he seems to think, from abortion to infanticide. “Of course, infanticide needs to be strictly legally controlled and rare – but it should not be ruled out, any more than abortion.”
These are just the first two I stumbled across via Google. Need more?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact