PBA305H: Peter Singer's Functionalism

Most abortion advocates deny the humanity of the pre-born to justify abortion. Peter Singer instead argues that it can be justifiable to kill innocent pre-born (or newborn) human beings because they are not persons¹⁾, and because he doesn't consider membership in a species to be morally relevant (comparing speciesism to racism or sexism). He argues that the moral question for abortion should be based on a utilitarian calculation which compares the preferences of a woman against the preferences of the fetus – and does not consider a fetus or newborn of having many serious interests.²⁾ He agrees with pro-lifers that birth is not relevant, so he bites the bullet and says that infanticide isn't intrinsically wrong either – the same argument used against the sanctity of pre-born human life applies against the sanctity of newborn human life.

Three primary texts:

1. Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics (Third Edition). New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.³⁾
   • 2nd Edition
     • Chapter 6, Taking Life: The Embryo and the Fetus
       • The conservative position, and inadequate liberal responses (p. 138-149)
       • Singer's central preference utilitarian argument for abortion, p. 149-152
       • Addressing an argument of potential human personhood, p. 152-156
       • Biting the bullet on abortion and infanticide, p. 169-174
     • Chapter 7, Taking Life: Humans
       • addresses euthanasia for disabled infants, p. 181-191
2. Singer, Peter. Rethinking Life & Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995. pages
3. Singer, Peter. Animal liberation: a new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York: New York review, 1975.
4. http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html

the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life. Rethinking Life and Death, p. 105

the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. Practical Ethics reference

• What does normal mean? What does consciousness mean? We're dealing with arbitrary cut off points…
• If Singer is correct that rationality and self-consciousness define the morally significant person, then why shouldn’t greater rationality make you more of a person?

• Apply it to people that we know: Peter Singer could not apply his own worldview to his mother; he knows on a deeper, intuitive level that his worldview doesn't work

• First, we won't want to get in a worldview argument if we don't have to – the animal rights question doesn't need resolution to get some basic agreement on human rights.
• But, the utilitarian ethic is antithetical to the pro-life perspective and its adequacy needs a response (e.g. the problem of gang-rape, if we're similarly measuring overall pleasure against overall pain)

mine Klusendorf's handling of this for primary source references (Lee, George, Mary Anne Warren, Jan Narveson, Peter Singer, etc.) – may warrant separate seminars. http://prolifetraining.com/Articles/Five-Bad-Ways.htm

• Anthropocentrism, Speciesism
• Infanticide
• Euthanasia of disabled infants, Gronigen Protocol
• : “Useless Eaters” (paper)
• TED Talk on Essentialism
• Mary Anne Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion.” worth another seminar topic to address this directly?
• “Why Libertarians Should be Pro-Choice Regarding Abortion,” Libertarian philosopher Jan Narveson here or another topic?
• Michael Tooley?

• then, why that point, why that developmental milestones?
  • Why should we go with your definition and not mine? It's arbitrary
• level of development in SLED ⇒ functionalism
• Apply it to people that we know: Peter Singer could not apply his own worldview to his mother; he knows on a deeper, intuitive level that his worldview doesn't work
• Child abuse until self-awareness would be permissible
• He thinks the killing of newborns should be limited to those who are severely disabled… that's inconsistent with his worldview – who cares if you kill healthy newborns?

• his claims are counterintuitive

Sources:

• Animal Liberation excerpt from Gensler's Ethics: Contemporary Readings
• http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/blog/2013/09/23/why-peter-singer-dangerous-and-its-not-what-you-think
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkJCNK9nBwI&feature=player_embedded

Objections:

• According to Singer, the answer is no. “When we kill a newborn, there is no person whose life has begun. When I think of myself as the person I am now, I realize that I did not come into existence until sometime after my birth.”17 As Scott Rae and Paul Cox point out, however, “If I do not exist until sometime after my birth, in what sense is the birth mine? The only way for ‘my birth’ to be more than a linguistic convention is to admit that ‘I’ existed before I was born, or at least at the time of my birth.”