Academia's "doctor death"

Human Life Review, Fall 1998 by Oderberg, David S

So now, in recognition of his contribution to philosophy, he has been appointed to the Ira W. DeCamp Professorship of Bioethics at Princeton's University Center for Human Values. It is expected that, among other things, he will engage in joint research with Jane Goodall, famous for her fieldwork on the life of chimpanzees, as part of the "Great Ape Project"-the campaign to give "civil equality" to non-human primates.

Princeton is no doubt pleased with its coup, as are Singer's followers in the bioethics industry. Nevertheless, the appointment raises serious questions given the nature of Singer's ethical views. One assumes that the University Center for Human Values has as its mission to promote human values, not undermine them; but even the most cursory look at what Prof. Singer stands for shows that Princeton ought to think very carefully about the wisdom of its decision.

One thing American readers may not know is that Singer has been dogged by controversy wherever he goes on the lecture circuit. His visits have been met by protests in Britain, Switzerland, Germany and Austria, among other places. In the late 1980s a major international philosophy conference in Austria had to be cancelled because of protesters from groups representing the disabled and handicapped, who threatened to disrupt proceedings. In 1996 demonstrators tried to storm a building in Bonn, Germany, where Prof. Singer was launching his latest book. Young protesters, some in wheelchairs, chanted "Singer out!". Three parliamentarians from Helmut Kohl's Christian Democratic party likened Singer to Hitler's henchman Martin Bormann. Prof. Singer can now hardly speak in Europe without being assailed by the shouts of the handicapped, who have been known to chain themselves to barricades outside his lecture venues.

To be sure, just because a speaker attracts protesters does not mean his views are wrong, though it does indicate that he is controversial. Moreover, the fact that some of the most vociferous objectors are found in Germany and Austria gives us a clue. It would appear that young Germans and Austrians are saying something like: "We know about your views. We've tried them out in our country, and we know now how bad they are. Listen to us!"

So what are some of Singer's more objectionable views?

For a start, do not be misled into thinking he believes in rights, whether for humans, animals, trees or whatever. "I am not," he has written, "convinced that the notion of a moral right is a helpful or meaningful one . . . Nevertheless: "The language of rights is a convenient political shorthand. It is even more valuable in the era of thirty-second TV news clips.ss2 In other words, Singer approves of pretending to believe in rights as a propaganda tool, whilst knowing the "truth" that no one has rights, and that any life, in the end, can be sacrificed for the "overall good" mandated by the utilitarian calculus.

Does anyone deserve at least some sort of protection sanctioned by morality? According to Singer, only a certain category of human beings merits serious protection, namely those who have "lives worth living."3