Live and let live
Sir: Peter Singer's noted contributions to moral philosophy (`Killing babies isn't always wrong', 16 September) have always been clear and refreshingly devoid of euphemism and evasion. He is right to point to inconsistencies in the arguments of some of those who oppose abortion or infanticide, and right to resist justifying what amounts to infanticide simply by clev- erly redefining death as 'brain death' — as the medical establishment seems to have done. But people should be wary of thinking that his views represent the received wisdom among philosophers who deal with bioethics.
To be cautious about some of Singer's assumptions does not signal agreement with the Pope, or moral conservatism, or opposition to all abortions. When Singer asks why merely being human confers an absolute right to life, he is raising a vexing problem which cannot be answered with mere rhetoric. However, it is hard to see why his criteria (whatever they are — he doesn't really tell us) for a worthwhile life which should not be ended are any less
arbitrary than the one he attacks. Further- more, while he is right to say that 'letting nature take its course' is often more hon- estly describable as killing, the potential to lead a valuable life may, in spite of his denial, have some relevance to the ethics of killing or letting die — which may in turn suggest that some abortions are not on a moral par with killing anencephalic infants.
Surely one reason why we condemn wrongful killing, or fear premature death, is that it cuts off a worthwhile future. It is for this reason that those who support abortion from a more feminist angle correctly con- centrate on the rights of the mother rather than the status of the foetus.
Piers Benn
Department of Philosophy, The University, Leeds
Previous page
