Singers Philosophical Views on Human Life

Singer's exploration of life is firmly rooted in the utilitarian perspective, which seeks to produce the greatest good for the majority in any given situation. His views on the sanctity of human life, particularly in the contexts of abortion and infanticide, are informed by a critical distinction between the terms 'human being' and 'person.' This essay delves into Singer's interpretations and how they challenge traditional moral frameworks, such as natural law theory and common morality, especially concerning the ethics of abortion and infanticide.

Defining 'Personhood' and Its Implications

The term 'human' encompasses two primary ideals: being a member of the species Homo sapiens and qualifying as a person. Singer, through the lens of utilitarianism, argues for a distinction between being a human being and a person. According to Singer, personhood requires conscious awareness of one's surroundings and the ability to make moral decisions. This definition challenges conventional notions of the right to life for a fetus, which, while acknowledged as a living human being from conception, is considered a 'non-person' due to its lack of self-awareness. Consequently, Singer argues that a fetus does not possess an inherent right to life.

In "Taking Life: The Embryo and the Fetus," various arguments within the pro-life and pro-choice debate are explored. Pro-choice arguments, supported by Singer, assert that the location of the fetus—inside or outside the womb—does not alter its state of being. Furthermore, the concept of viability, or when a fetus can survive outside the womb, is contested. Advances in technology have shifted viability to an earlier stage than previously assumed, lending support to conservative views. Nonetheless, Singer maintains that personhood requires a consciousness capable of moral reasoning, which a fetus lacks, thereby justifying abortion under utilitarian principles.

Consciousness and Moral Awareness

The debate over when a fetus gains consciousness is a pivotal point. Conservative views suggest movement as early as six weeks post-fertilization and brain activity at seven weeks. While these observations seemingly challenge Singer’s criteria for personhood, they do not suffice, as Singer emphasizes the necessity of a moral mental framework for personhood recognition. Thus, despite evidence of early brain activity, the absence of moral reasoning capabilities in a fetus upholds Singer's argument for its non-person status.

Liberal perspectives align with Singer on several points, particularly regarding the permissibility of abortion and infanticide, even if the fetus or infant is acknowledged as a human being. The practical implications of a strict anti-abortion law, which could lead to unsafe, illegal procedures, underscore the utilitarian argument that a law causing more harm than good is inherently flawed. Additionally, the notion of victimless crime in abortion, given the fetus is considered a non-person, further supports this view. A compelling analogy likens a pregnant woman to a person involuntarily sustaining another's life in a hospital setting, illustrating the ethical complexity of forced gestation.

Potential Life and Ethical Considerations

Singer's perspective on the potentiality of fetal life challenges the conservative argument that a fetus should be treated as a potential human being. He draws an analogy between the ethical implications of this stance and the trivialization of potential life, akin to judging an egg's potential to become a chicken as ethically identical to a live chicken. This analogy highlights the ethical complexity in equating potential human life with actual human life. Moreover, Singer contends that contraception similarly prevents potential life, questioning the consistency of conservative arguments.

Infanticide, an area where Singer draws parallels with abortion, is another contentious topic. He argues that infants, like fetuses, lack self-awareness and rationality, thus possessing no greater claim to life. Emotional biases towards infants, often influenced by societal perceptions of their cuteness, obscure the ethical parallels between infants and fetuses. For infanticide to be ethically considered, Singer stipulates the necessity of consent from the closest relatives, mirroring the autonomy granted to women in abortion decisions.

Reconciling Personal Beliefs and Utilitarian Ethics

Initially, my beliefs, rooted in a Christian upbringing and adherence to natural law theory, viewed abortion as inherently wrong. However, engaging with Singer's arguments and utilitarian ethics has challenged my prior convictions. The utilitarian framework, focusing on maximizing overall well-being, provides a compelling lens through which to view abortion and infanticide, particularly in light of modern ethical dilemmas. While natural law theory emphasizes the sanctity of life, Singer's arguments invite a reevaluation of moral principles concerning self-consciousness and autonomy.

In conclusion, Singer's utilitarian perspective offers a nuanced approach to the ethics of abortion and infanticide, challenging traditional moral frameworks. His arguments underscore the complexities of defining personhood and potential life, advocating for ethical considerations that maximize well-being. This exploration of Singer's ideas invites continued reflection on the ethical dimensions of life, personhood, and the rights of individuals involved in these profound decisions.

Did you like this example?

1015

42