I just finished reading
Writings on an Ethical Life, by
Peter Singer.
For those who don't know him, Peter Singer is a philosopher who
has become very controversial because some of his positions, which
he expressed without compromising clarity to political
correctness. This book is in my opinion a must-read for everybody who is concerned with moral and ethical issues.
In an interview conducted by Bob Abernethy and shoved on WNET-TV
on 20 September 1999, he expressed very clearly the key concepts
that form the basis of his positions (a transcript of the interview
is included in the book). In response to the very first
question, he stated:
First, it is important to say that in my view [...] a human
being doesn't have value simply in virtue of belonging to
the species Homo Sapiens. Species membership alone
isn't enough. The qualities that I think are important are,
first, a capacity to experience something—that is, a capacity to
feel pain, or to have any kind of feelings. That's really
basic. But then that's something we share with a huge range
of nonhuman animals. In addition, when it comes to a
question of taking life, or allowing life to end, I would say it
matters whether a being is the kind of being who can see that that
he or she actually has a life—that is, can see that he or she is
the same being who exists now, who existed in the past, and who
will exist in the future.
I use the term "person"
to refer to a being with that kind of self-awareness—in the words
of the philosopher James Rachels, a being who can live a biographical
life and not merely a biological life. A person has
a lot more to lose when his or her life is ended than a being that
is conscious, and can feel pain, but nevertheless is conscious of
its existence only moment by moment, experiencing only one
moment of consciousness and then the next, without understanding
the connection between them.
One of the results of his position is that in his opinion parents should
be able to choose to
kill their newborn child if it was born with conditions so severe that
doctors don't really try to keep it alive. In Singer's words, "It would
be justifiable to take active steps to end that infant's life swiftly
and more humanely than by allowing death to come through dehydration,
starvation, or an untreated infection".
Clearly, such positions have generated a lot of controversy. But I have
to ask, once political correctness and absolute truths based on faith
rather than logic are left behind, how can anybody disagree with such a
statement? The sanctity of human life advocated by many (perhaps most)
is based on the concept that human beings are made in the image of God
and should be treated in a special way purely because they belong to the
species
Homo Sapiens. But a baby, as a being, is no different
from other mammals. In fact, it can be argued that, given the choice
between saving an adult chimpanzee and a human baby with spina bifida,
we should save the chimpanzee. An adult chimpanzee has a past and looks
forward to a future life, why a human infant has no past and is not
self-aware.
In general, I find that too often society reacts to ideas and events
because it is perceived that people have to react that way, rather than
because they have thought the whole matter through. This is not the
first time that I mention my hatred for political correctness (and empty
politeness, but that's another matter).
Nowadays, you cannot disagree with some policies of the state of Israel
or condemn some acts of the Israeli army without being accused of
anti-semitism. Well, I believe that Israel has no moral right to keep
the people in Gaza captive and prevent ships from supplying them. Hamas
shouldn't send rockets to Israel. It is, in fact, an activity that I
found unacceptable and, frankly, also counterproductive. But the
Israeli government really are bullies. And I am
not for this an anti-semite!
You cannot observe that blacks and whites are different without being
accused of being racist. If you search the Internet, you will find that
for decades people have argued about differences of IQ between ethnic
groups. Somebody wrote that blacks (or Africans? I don't remember)
have on average a lower IQ than European and that Asians (or Chinese?)
have an average IQ
higher than Europeans. And so what? First of
all, we are talking of measurements that are not as straightforward as
measuring heights of weights. With these IQ tests, the only thing that
you can be certain of is what the scores are. Certainly not what they
mean and what they exactly measure. Secondly, there are so many factors
that have an influence on the capacity to solve tests, ranging from
education to nutrition, from health to how much coffee you have drunk
before sitting for the test. Even if it were true that blacks have
lower average scores, very many blacks will still score better than most
Europeans and Chinese!
And then, of course there is sexism. Human females have smaller brains
than males. That is a fact. Am I being sexist? Probably not, unless I
were than to say that women are therefore less intelligent (whatever
that means) than men. But I certainly don't believe so. And what if I
were to say that women are on average more emotional than men? Perhaps
such a statement has no basis in reality. But would I be sexist if I
were to believe it (I don't actually have an opinion either way)? And
can I allow myself to compliment the look of a woman without being
accused of objectifying her simply because so many men and women are
concerned with how one looks? Whoof...
Another concept that cannot be contradicted with impunity in modern
society is that everybody is equal. Now, I believe that everybody
should have the right to achieve the maximum level of fulfillment in
their lives. But to say that everybody's needs and capabilities are the
same is nonsense.
We are all different! I know, this can
become an excuse for accepting or causing injustice, but by denying that
we are different from each other, we run other risks. For example,
physically disabled people are different from people with fully-abled
bodies. If we were to deny it, we couldn't possibly advocate the
presence of ramps in buildings, could we? Peter Singer was accused of
advocating euthanasia of disabled adults because of his position about
unviable newborn babies. Come on!
In all cases, the key is
respect. As long as I respect the
people I am in contact with, regardless of their color, size, gender,
and sexual orientation, I must be able to say what I believe to be
true. Or should I be denied to tell somebody that I think they are
incompetent simply because he/she is black, or a woman, or gay, and my
criticism might be interpreted as discrimination? Let's face it: a
stupid, as well as a genius, can come in any colour and shape!
What follows is a short section of Peter Singer's book. The section title is
Toward an Ethical Life and was first publishe in 1993 in the book
How Are We to Live?
In a society in which
the narrow pursuit of material self-interest is the norm, the
shift to an ethical stance is more radical than many people
realize. In comparison with the needs of people starving in
Somalia, the desire to sample the wines of the leading French
vineyards pales into insignificance. Judged against the suffering
of immobilized rabbits having shampoos dripped into their eyes, a
better shampoo becomes an unworthy goal. The preservation of
old-growth forests should override our desire to use disposable
paper towels. An ethical approach to life does not forbid having
fun or enjoying food and wine, but it changes our sense of
priorities. The effort and expense put into buying fashionable
clothes, the endless search for more and more refined gastronomic
pleasures, the astonishing additional expense that marks out the
prestige car market from the market in cars for people who just
want a reliable means of getting from A to B—all these become
disproportionate to people who can shift perspective long enough
to take themselves, at least for a time, out of the spotlight. If
a higher ethical consciousness spreads, it will utterly change the
society in which we live.
We cannot expect that
this higher ethical consciousness will become universal. There
will always be people who don’t care for anyone or anything, not
even for themselves. There will be others, more numerous and more
calculating, who earn a living by taking advantage of others,
especially the poor and the powerless. We cannot afford to wait
for some coming glorious day when everyone will live in loving
peace and harmony with everyone else. Human nature is not like
that at present, and there is no sign of its changing sufficiently
in the foreseeable future. Since reasoning alone proved incapable
of fully resolving the clash between self-interest and ethics, it
is unlikely that rational argument will persuade every rational
person to act ethically. Even if reason had been able to take us
further, we would still have had to face the reality of a world in
which many people are very far from acting on the basis of
reasoning of any kind, even crudely self-interested reasoning. So
for a long time to come, the world is going to remain a tough
place in which to live.
Nevertheless, we are
part of this world and there is a desperate need to do something
now about the conditions in which people live and die, and to
avoid both social and ecological disaster. There is no time to
focus our thoughts on the possibility of a distant utopian future.
Too many humans and nonhuman animals are suffering now, the
forests are going too quickly, population growth is still out of
control, and if we do not bring greenhouse gas emissions down
rapidly, the lives and homes of 46 million people are at risk in
the Nile and Bengal delta regions alone. Nor can we wait for
governments to bring about the change that is needed. It is not in
the interests of politicians to challenge the fundamental
assumptions of the society they have been elected to lead. If 10
percent of the population were to take a consciously ethical
outlook on life and act accordingly, the resulting change would be
more significant than any change of government. The division
between an ethical and a selfish approach to life is far more
fundamental than the difference between the policies of the
political right and the political left.
We have to take the
first step. We must reinstate the idea of living an ethical life
as a realistic and viable alternative to the present dominance of
materialist self-interest. If a critical mass of people with new
priorities were to emerge, and if these people were seen to do
well, in every sense of the term—if their cooperation with each
other brings reciprocal benefits, if they find joy and fulfillment
in their lives—then the ethical attitude will spread, and the
conflict between ethics and self-interest will have been shown to
be overcome, not by abstract reasoning alone, but by adopting the
ethical life as a practical way of living and showing that it
works, psychologically, socially, and ecologically.
Anyone can become part
of the critical mass that offers us a chance of improving the
world before it is too late. You can rethink your goals and
question what you are doing with your life. If your present way of
living does not stand up against an impartial standard of value,
then you can change it. That might mean quitting your job, selling
your house, and going to work for a voluntary organization in
India. More often, the commitment to a more ethical way of living
will be the first step of a gradual but far-reaching evolution in
your lifestyle and in your thinking about your place in the world.
You will take up new causes and find your goals shifting. If you
get involved in your work, money and status will become less
important. From your new perspective, the world will look
different. One thing is certain: you will find plenty of
worthwhile things to do. You will not be bored or lack fulfillment
in your life. Most important of all, you will know that you have
not lived and died for nothing, because you will have become part
of the great tradition of those who have responded to the amount
of pain and suffering in the universe by trying to make the world
a better place.
