The liberal view
Sir: Piers Benn is right to praise the lucidity of Peter Singer's article (`Killing babies isn't always wrong', 16 September). Nevertheless, there are, it seems to me, two different and discordant elements in the article.
On the one hand, Singer makes overt ref- erence to the customs of pre-modern peo- ples. On the other, he relies on a theoreti- cal analysis which belongs to one particular tradition of modern (i.e., European post- Christian) thought.
Benn himself recalls us to the genesis of these arguments when he contrasts the `rights' (not wishes) of the mother with the `status' of the foetus. A right, of course, is a moral claim. And a foetus cannot make claims. As Roger Scruton observes, for the liberal the unborn do not count since they are 'outside the social contract'.
Certainly, we do know of non-liberal societies which practise induced abortion.
7 need trepanning like I need a hole in the head.' Consider, for example, the Samburu of Kenya, as described by Nigel Pavitt. Mem- bers of such societies would not justify their practices in terms that would be familiar to Singer or Benn, however.
Furthermore, their moral outlook in gen- eral would not be bounded by concepts of rational choice or abstract right. Nor would they conceive their social life in quasi-con- tractual terms.
The philosophical and anthropological elements in Peter Singer's article simply will not mesh. The reference to other soci- eties is a red herring. The arguments he addresses are clear enough but will only be persuasive to those who already accept, a liberal outlook.
Michael Dolling
58 Aldervale Cottages, Crowborough, East Sussex
Previous page
