Abstract This paper argues that PeterSinger's criticism of the conservative position vis-a-vis abortion is not without merit. Specifically, the paper argue that Singer's stance that the unborn are not really human is credible if one recognizes that fetuses (as a general medical rule) cannot survive independent of the mother before at least five months have elapsed. The paper suggests that his arguments are tolerable within tight limitations.
Table of Contents:
Abstract
Body of Paper
Conclusion
From the Paper "Still, while it is easy to sharply criticize Singer for his cavalier attitude towards the unborn, a case can be presented that abortion - and the idea that fetuses are non-human - is tolerable within tight limitations. Specifically, any fetus which is present in the mother's womb before 18-20 weeks is most likely incapable of living outside of the womb; in that sense, it is a part of the mother and, if she so desires, the mother can rid herself of this "part". To put it another way, the fetus is a "bundle of cells" that is clearly not human in even the most generous sense and that makes it, for want of a better term, "disposable". While this writer is not a proponent of abortion as a general rule, it seems intuitive that something incapable of life outside the mother is therefore incapable of being considered a person in the same way that a child is a person. Going further, this sort of approach is perfectly in keeping with Singer's own belief that non-rational beings (the severely disabled, the very young) lacking the capacity for independent thought are also undeserving of the title, "human" (though this writer, as noted in a previous paper, finds Singer's argument in this respect disquieting and unethical)."
Abstract This paper criticizes PeterSinger's views on infanticide in "Practical Ethics". Singer believes that children should not be considered people until they have existed outside the mother's womb for at least a month and that physicians are morally justified in killing disabled infants. The paper considers this a disturbingly utilitarian approach that weighs human life on the basis of how useful and convenient it is to society and to those who will care for it. The paper claims that this approach offers an intellectual justification for the Nazis' behavior in WWII. At its most dangerous, the paper concludes, Singer's concept of the utility of infanticide may unjustly allow people to determine who should live - and who should die.
From the Paper "In our western culture, we are very often taught that all human life is precious and that the lives of the very young are particularly precious - not least of all because they represent the future. Controversial ethicist Peter Singer, however, feels otherwise. Specifically, Singer has long held the view that children should not be considered people until they have existed outside the mother's womb for at least a month (thirty days) and that physicians are morally justified in killing some infants "on the spot" if those infants are disabled. In Singer's estimation, are not self-aware (therefore not human) and their lives are certainly of no greater value - actually of lesser value - than that of dumb animals like the chimpanzee or dog (Klusendorf, para.1; Singer, 122-123). Singer proceeds to argue that infants are not rational, self-conscious beings with a desire to live. Indeed, if killing an infant child (most especially a disabled one) will increase the happiness of other parties (principally the parents but, really, anyone who might stand to gain from the death of the infant) than taking the child's life is permissible; it is, in short, a profoundly utilitarian approach that weighs human life on the basis of how useful (and how "convenient") it is to society and to those who will care for it. As a final addendum, Singer insists that infanticide is only objectionable if its commission would bring about unhappiness to the parents (Klusendorf, para.5-8). It is a stunning moral view and a deeply troubling one."
Abstract The paper examines PeterSinger's book "Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals" and the claim made in the book that the interests of non-human animals are as equally deserving of our consideration as the interests of human beings. The paper goes on to discuss if there is a morally significant difference between the interests of human and non-human animals.
From the Paper "In consequence, therefore, "equality is a moral ideal, not a simple assertion of fact" (Singer, 1975, p.5). It is the notion of respecting the feelings of others, through a mutual understanding of the way in which life's experiences affect each individual despite any outward differences such as intelligence, ethnicity, gender, and so forth, and despite the differences between the species. Human animals and non-human animals, although different in some ways, share the same capacity to feel, which, according to Singer (1975) implies that they should be treated by humans in accordance with their interests at heart rather than those of the human race.
"Singer (1975) defends his views by pointing out the fact that human beings are undeniably unequal. Human societies are, and always have been, built upon the views, values, and beliefs of the majority, which inevitably results in injustice, discrimination, and inequality. It was this understanding, especially within recent history, that has enabled significant changes within the law to provide adequate provisions for disadvantaged groups within contemporary societies. These laws, consequently, are based on the fundamental human rights of all people, regardless of race, religion, or creed, and which reflects the understanding of the value of human life or existence."
An examination of PeterSinger's book "Writings on an Ethical Life" and his view on abortion. The paper explains that PeterSinger has been hailed as the most influential living philosopher and ethicist.
1,907 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 0 sources, 2002, $ 60.95
Abstract This paper focuses on Singer's application of the principle of utility to the ethics of abortion. The first part of the paper discusses how Singer refined the utilitarian principles popularly associated with Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to his own principle of preference utilitarianism. The second part examines how Singer applies this preference utilitarianism to conclude that abortion is completely moral and ethical. The last section is a critical examination of Singer's utilitarian approach to abortion, as he articulates in the book "Writings on an Ethical Life."
From the Paper "Recognizing the difficulty of measuring pleasure or happiness, Singer instead proposes a principle of utility based on interests. He writes that "my own interests cannot, simply because they are my interests, count more than the interests of anyone else" (16). Instead of acting according to our own self-interests, Singer calls on people to take on a universal point of view. In essence, one's own interests and ideas matter only when seen in their consequence to everyone else's interests. Singer calls this view ?preference utilitarianism.?"
Abstract PeterSinger and Chitra Divakaruni each offer a powerful commentary on world poverty. Both of their respective essays, "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" and "Live Free and Starve" demonstrate good writing skills and rhetoric are therefore worthy pieces for inclusion into any book club. This paper however explains that of the two authors, only Divakaruni has first-hand experience of poverty. Singer's argument, while more shocking and powerful than Divakaruni's, falls short because of his lack of personal credibility and his over-reliance on making the reader feel guilty.
From the Paper "According to Australian author Peter Singer, we live in a cold and heartless world. The analogies in his essay "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" bluntly suggest that we in the Western world are guilty of crimes against humanity simply by not donating $200 or more each month to charitable organizations. His first story is based on a Brazilian movie called Central Station. The protagonist in the film was offered a thousand dollars to usher a child to his killer. When Dora discovers what she has done, she resolves to make amends. However, Singer twists the tale around to make it seem as if we, the readers of his essay, are guilty of a crime. Like Dora, however, we readers are not guilty of the crimes Singer is accusing us of. Furthermore, Singer offers us no ethos in his argument. His "solution to world poverty" is based purely on opinion and intellectual babble, not on experience."
Abstract This paper critically reviews contemporary Australian utilitarian philosopher PeterSinger's piece, a chapter from Practical Ethics entitled "Quality for Animals," outlining his main arguments and offering criticism of them.
From the Paper "In his controversial utilitarian work, Practical Ethics, modern Australian philosopher, Peter Singer, includes a chapter entitled "Equality for Animals. Singer has throughout the book so far argued for a sort of utilitarianism, based on the original theories of founders of this ethical philosophy such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, a utilitarianism that hopes for ethical, equal, and fair treatment of all humankind, all people, however diverse, who might walk our planet and interact in our society. Yet, in this chapter, Singer extends his hopes for equality and ethical treatment beyond the human realm; he argues that all members of the animal kingdom, not just our species Homo sapiens, deserve to be treated equally. Likening what he has dubbed speciesism to the dread occurrence of racism, Singer makes an overall simple argument against this speciesism which humans seem to have, augmenting with many and complex sub-arguments."
Abstract This paper outlines PeterSinger's defense of euthanasia for the severely disabled and, by extension, the very young or very old. The paper argues that Singer's rationale does not stand up to scrutiny insofar as, as a moral philosophy, it constitutes a real danger to any concept of the social contract. The paper posits that if society permits people to be grouped according to some sort of hierarchy that privileges some above others, then it becomes easy for individuals to forget the essential humanity of other members of the community. In the end, the paper maintains that Singer's philosophy is rife with problems.
From the Paper "My personal view is that Singer's argument is manifestly weak. For one thing, to allow human beings to be euthanized (killed off might be a better expression) is to create a new kind of moral philosophy that, for all intents and purposes, undermines the humanity of all us. To put it another way, if it is possible for the severely-disabled to be killed without fear of moral condemnation (to say nothing of legal condemnation), what is to stop the large-scale killings of individuals on the basis of skin color, perceived mental acuity (they do not have to be severely disabled but can merely be burdened by below average intelligence) and/or on the basis that the abilities they possess are of little use to the larger community?"
Abstract This paper is an exploration of the character of human motives derived by examining the discourses of philosophers Plato, John Stuart Mill, David Hume and PeterSinger. It defines several theories of human desires, egoism and humanism. Each of these philosphers has posited a theory of human action that diverges on what is the pricipal motivator -personal pleasure, or the betterment of the moral good. The conclusion is closer to Hume's egoist point of view but makes interesting analogies.
From the Paper "Imagine a person standing in line at a grocery store and they say to the woman behind them, ?that is a beautiful dress and it fits you so well.? Now, here is the question that will plague this paper"why did the person say that" The question is asking what was it that motivated this individual to make the comment. I would hope that, at least at this point, you were unable to answer the question for I intentionally left out all the details that would permit a reasonable person to develop an answer."
Abstract This paper looks at how British philosopher David Hume posited that reason cannot be the major determinant of moral action and how, instead, reason should only play a secondary role to another primary human faculty, passion. It argues the continuing relevance of Hume's thesis that, despite the current level of scientific knowledge, passion remains the strongest determinant of ethical and moral action. The first part of this paper evaluates Hume's conception of reason as an ability to calculate and to discern causation. The next part of the paper then looks at Hume's definition and categories of conception. In the final section, the paper compares Hume's writings on the secondary role of reason to PeterSinger's principle of utility and shows how passion continues to be the prime motivator human action.
From the Paper "Despite the supposed primacy of reason, however, most people disagree with controversial philosopher Peter Singer's view of "preference utilitarianism," an extreme ethical value system that seeks to replace individual instinctive interests with a "reasoned" concept of the general good. Singer's value system states that one's own interests and ideas matter only when seen in their consequence to everyone else's interests (Singer 15). According to Singer's preference utilitarian, the obligation of an American couple to feed and nurture their own baby is equal to their obligation to feed and nurture a refugee Kurdish child. After all, both children have an interest in eating and growing up. The fact that parents intuitively love their own child more than a child they have never met does not figure into Singer's equation."
Abstract This paper discusses the arguments for and against the notion that without God there can be no morality. Arguments include the humanist angle from the philosopher PeterSinger and also individualist notions from Kant. The views of other philosophers such as Plato, Keirkegaard and Dostoevskii are also examined as well as religious textual examples.
From the Paper "If an act is to be considered good merely because God decided it was so, then ethics are completely arbitrary. God easily could have decided that the horrific and monstrous acts such as paedophilia and rape were virtuous, and ergo, by definition they would be 'good' acts. However, I believe that "God is not...an instrumental means for acquiring independent goods" . Instead of basing morality on the fallible nature of theistic belief, why not base morality on observed consequences. Start, instead from the position that many people hold, that "a wrong act is one that manifestly harms others or their interests, or violates their rights or causes injustice" This view provides the underlying thinking behind and is prevalent within, all major human rights legislation, with the notion of God and morality, never being mentioned. "
Abstract The paper discusses PeterSinger's beliefs that while we may exploit animals for food or clothing, we need to be certain that we take the interests of the animals into consideration. The paper paints a picture of the often cruel treatment of animals by humans where there is no ethical consideration of the animal's interests whatsoever. The paper stresses that while the idea of producing mass quantities of low-cost food is not in itself evil, innocent animals deserve ethically defensible treatment.
From the Paper "Peter Singer is acknowledged as the father of the animal rights movement. His book Practical Ethics (1979) actually does not argue for animal rights, but rather for animal welfare. Singer's philosophy is utilitarian. His utilitarian approach is to judge right and wrong behavior on the basis of the behavior's consequences. The right act is the one that maximizes positive or beneficial consequences for all parties involved. The good or bad effects an action produces provide the basis for judgment of the action itself. The consequences of the individual specific act are what matter--and not what would happen if everybody acted the same way. This view is called act-utilitarianism."
Abstract This paper explores whether policy endogeneity partially explains the negative relationship generally reported between parental involvement laws and abortion rates, since parental involvement laws are found to be negatively related to both teen and adult abortion rates. Since parental involvement laws may be more likely to be passed in jurisdictions with a higher level of anti-abortion sentiment, both the laws and anti-abortion sentiment may be responsible for lower abortion rates. To explore this possible interrelatedness, a religiosity-level variable was used as a proxy for anti-abortion sentiment, since anti-abortion sentiment might affect abortion rates directly and indirectly through the greater likelihood of the enactment of parental involvement laws.
From the Paper "The relationship of parental involvement laws and religiosity level to abortion rates was analyzed for teens and adults; regressions were estimated for four age groups: 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, and 30-34 years old. Residence county-level 1995 abortion rates were regressed against parental involvement laws and religiosity levels as well as several control county-level variables--restrictive public funding, unemployment rate, population density, percent of college graduates, extent of poverty, percent of married-couple families, and geographic region. The sample consisted of the 1,008 counties from the 17 states that reported abortion numbers by county and by age group."
Tags:abortion, involvement, laws, parental, rates, research, study
Abstract This paper contends that few topics in American politics are more explosive and more divisive than abortion. It explains that although the legal history of abortion is relatively short, it is complicated and continues to be actively debated and pursued by activists on both sides of the argument: pro-choice activists are refocusing their fight to achieve greater access to abortions for all women and pro-life activists, while combating these new pro-abortion pursuits, continue to fight for an overturning of the original decision that led to the legalization of abortion, Roe v. Wade. This paper reviews a representation of the literature on the abortion debate, as well as the legal history and moral debate.
From the Paper "More than thirty years after Roe the jury is still out. Few topics in American politics are more explosive and more divisive than abortion. Perhaps this is because it encompasses a vast combination of one's constitutional rights, moral issues, religious belief .."
Abstract The paper begins by defining the anti-abortion position on abortion and then gives the statistics on the position of many countries regarding this issue. The pro-choice lobby is also cited and their views discussed. The body of the paper is based on the views on abortion in four countries: Brazil, China, France, and The United States. Each country has very different positions and laws regarding abortion and all are discussed in-depth. The paper concludes that each person must have a position on abortion. If abortion is wrong, then both mother and baby should be protected, unless it can be shown that one's life might be lost if the pregnancy were allowed to continue. If abortion is acceptable then the mother must be protected and society must understand that there is only one human in this equation.
From the Paper "There are many people today who believe that abortion is wrong and bad. They recognize that medical science has long since proven conclusively that human life begins at fertilization. Accordingly, they cannot and do not deny that abortion is killing. Further, most also believe abortion is against God's will. But there different peoples and theirs different points of view, even countries have own position on this problem: 39% of the world's women live under restrictive abortion laws: 25% in parts of the world where abortion is permitted only to save a woman's life or is prohibited altogether, 10% where abortion is allowed only when it is necessary to protect a woman's physical health or her life, and 4% in places where abortion is permitted only for these reasons or to protect a woman's mental health."
Tags:abortion, antopology, brazil, france, human, sexuality, usa, cultural, socioeconomic, differences, contraceptive, clandestine
This paper focuses strictly on the physical standpoint of abortion, as opposed to the moral and legal aspects, in which the writer proves why abortion should not be allowed to exist.
Abstract The writer of this paper does not dwell on the moral, religious or legal platform of abortion, yet focuses on the debatable issue from a strictly physical standpoint. This paper defines abortion as the knowing destruction of the life of an unborn child or the intentional expulsion or removal of an unborn child from the womb. This paper discusses the pros and cons regarding the availability of the RU-486 abortion pill as well as other abortion procedures. The RU-486 pill, which can be used within the first eight weeks of pregnancy, is a milestone to the abortion coalition. This paper examines the argument surrounding the viability of an unborn fetus in which the generally accepted rule for viability is around 28 weeks.
From the Paper "Cases have been reported of babies born four months premature, and weighing only one pound, nine ounces, surviving. If the abortion advocates could see what was being murdered they may not take it so lightly. For example, Cheryl Kondroski was 21 weeks pregnant when it was discovered that her baby had a very serious heart problem. After further testing showed that there was absolutely no chance of the baby even surviving the pregnancy, the decision was made to terminate the pregnancy. Labor was induced, and the little boy was born. Cheryl and the father were allowed to hold the baby. He was approximately 8 ? inches long and weighed a little over 1? pounds. Cheryl said, "His ears were still glued to his head. His eyes were shut, but his mouth was open. Everything, even fingernails and hair on his face, was there." Can anyone see this experience and still say that because this child could not survive on its own it was not a real child? Absolutely not."
