Re: Singer

More on that interview with Singer:

In his book Writings on an Ethical Life, he says: “The more intellectually sophisticated non-human animals have a mental and emotional life that in every significant respect equals or surpasses that of some of the most profoundly intellectually disabled human beings. This is not my subjective value judgement. It is a statement of fact that can be tested and verified over and over again. Only human arrogance can prevent us from seeing it.”

I disagree. Singer never defines intellectually sophisticated. Mere alertness is not intellect. No one has yet demonstrated any animal other than human beings capable of abstract thinking and reasoning.



Often the families say, ‘we don’t want them kept alive,’ so what you could say is we agree they shouldn’t be kept alive indefinitely but since you’ve made the decision that it’s better that they have fluids and food withdrawn so they die, maybe we could keep them alive for another month or two to do some research that could save millions of lives potentially, and then allow them to die.”

Singer doesn’t back away from the implications of his ideas.

Singer asserts. “If we close off compassion for any sentient beings, we’re not necessarily going to feel it for all humans; we’ll regard some categories of humans as beyond the pale as well.”

Yet, he doesn’t see the contradiction. Singer is open to compassion for all but still ends up regarding some categories of human beings (the pre-born, infants and those with brain damage) beyond the pale.