Whats Wrong With Killing Humans

1
Whats Wrong With Killing (Humans)?

• Peter Singer (1946- )

2

• Singer presents four possible reasons why killing
  a person may be wrong. These reasons are based on
  claims about the way that a persons life is more
  valuable than a non-persons life.

3

• The classical (or, act) utilitarian concern with
  the effect of killing on others. This is an
  indirect reason.
• For the classical utilitarian (according to
  Singer) the reason why killing persons is wrong
  is because it will worry other persons.

4

• 2. The preference utilitarian concern with the
  frustration of the persons desires and plans for
  the future.
• This is a direct reason.

5

• 3. That the person (since they have the capacity
  to conceive of themselves as existing over time)
  have a right to life.

6

• 4. That we must respect the autonomy of persons.
• (Kantian)

7

• According to Singer, a utilitarian may accept the
  first two reasons, but at an intuitive level
  will also find reason 4 compelling.
• Reason 3, however, with its appeal to the notion
  of rights cannot be accepted by a utilitarian
  or consequentialist.
• It is arguable that most people at least in
  modern western societies would find all of
  these reasons appealing a sign of how our moral
  thought tends to mix varieties of theoretical
  approaches.

8

• But, what about varieties of conscious and
  self-conscious life?
• Often (esp. in modern bio-ethics) we have to make
  decisions about quality of life.
• How can we make such judgments?

9

• Is it speciesist to judge that the life of a
  normal adult member of our species is more
  valuable than the life of a normal adult mouse?
• It would be possible to defend such a judgement
  only if we can find some neutral ground, some
  impartial standpoint from which we can make the
  comparison. (106)

10

• Is this possible? (Note its similarity to the
  problem of swinishness that Mill faces.)
• Singer thinks it is possible to imagine
  experiencing, and then choosing between, for
  example the life of a horse and the life of a
  human.
• And he is fairly confident that from this
  position, some forms of life would be seen as
  preferable to others. (p.107)

11

• In general it does seem that the more highly
  developed the conscious life of the being, the
  greater the degree of self-awareness and
  rationality and the broader the range of possible
  experiences, the more one would prefer that kind
  of life. (p.107)

12

• The implication is that this kind of life is of
  more value than a lower or less sophisticated
  form of life.
• Therefore, when it comes to life and death
  decisions more justification will be required
  to take the life of a being the higher up this
  scale we put them.

13

• So, for example, from prawn to mouse to dolphin
  to comatose human to healthy human we have a
  hierarchy of value.
• BUT all are valuable, and none has an absolute,
  or non-negotiable value.

14

• Singer would say that it is only when we get
  clear on these issues that we will be able to
  think clearly about questions such as
  vegetarianism, euthanasia, abortion,
  environmental pollution, etc.

15
Mid-Term Paper

• DUE DATEsubmit to the Department Office by 5pm
  Tuesday Oct 31st.
• Write a 500 word answer to EACH of the following
  questions. Please stay as close as possible to
  the 500 (total 1,500) word limit. There are no
  extra marks available for writing a 2,000 word
  treatise on one of these questions on the
  contrary. For this exercise, it is not necessary
  to show that you have done additional, secondary
  reading.

16
Questions

• 1. In Platos Republic, what kind of challenge
  does the story of Gyges and his Ring present to
  morality?
• 2. In what sense is Kants Categorical
  Imperative categorical in what sense is it an
  imperative?
• 3. What is the theory of life on which Mill
  bases the greatest happiness principle? How
  does this differ from the theory of life on
  which Aristotle seems to base his moral theory?