     |
By Rev. Andrew JJ Paton"My work is based on the assumption that clarity and consistency in our moral thinking is likely to lead us to hold better views on ethical issues." Wow, that's incredible! A famous New Jersey's ethicist believes you can think your way to better morals. This Princeton University professor is so sure that he published a book examining the ethics of President George W Bush. When he was appointed to teach Bioethics in 1999 there was a storm of protest over Dr. Singer's views promoting the killing of disabled newborns up to 28 days after birth. Here are 3 examples of the titles of his books: Practical Ethics, The Reproduction Revolution, Should the Baby Live? and Rethinking Life and Death. University President, Harold Shapiro, in the Daily Princetonian defended the appointment on grounds of academic freedom. He wrote: "Part of our purpose as a university is to ask the most difficult and fundamental questions about human existence. We search for truth, new knowledge and better understandings through scholarship, research and teaching, even as we also convey our society's cultural inheritance." I think the former and latter aims conflict in this case. Australian, Peter Singer is a brilliant man. Read one of his books. You'll soon be impressed with his flawless logic. If there is a problem, it's at a deeper level than mental prowess. Simply stated it's a choice: do you believe that what we hold, as ethical truth is the result of the best human thinking to date or is it a revelation from the world's Creator? Prof. Singer believes: "if you're talking about ethics as a set of worked-out rules on what we are supposed to do - it is a human product." He stated that since the 13th Century, ethics is increasingly becoming defined by secular thinking. He holds that in the past: "We did not have to ask whether some lives are more valuable than others. Now we cannot avoid that question." This makes him impatient with a purely religious approach to the subject, but that doesn't impugn his compassion. A colleague says he is "deeply committed to arguing for the reduction of suffering in the world." So why the fuss? He is in favor of euthanasia. Not just for the terminally ill, but also, in some cases, for babies. In Practical Ethics he wrote: "killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all." How does one get there? You start with the idea that the right to life is conferred by society, not given by God. Singer doesn't believe that "all men are created," (US Constitution) let alone "all men are created equal by God." He's not alone. There are many that don't like the Bible verse: "You (God) knit me together inside my mother's womb." There are academics in America who think your life has only a relative value. They favor your being allowed to live only if you are not a "disabled infant", a feeble, unproductive old person or if you are wanted by someone. If you have entertained "pro choice" ideas you have seen the beginnings of their logic. The mother's life is more valuable than that of the unborn. She therefore has the right to decide the infant's fate. Let there be no sanctimonious head shaking at Professor Singer. His logic is pure and if you don't believe all men are created equal, you will not be able to fault it. At the heart of this issue is pride, not just preference. I have seen this struggle deep in my own heart. It's the sneaking suspicion that, the more I study and the more I get done, the more valuable my life becomes - when compared to the lazy, the wasteful, and yes, even to the physically or mentally impaired. Like you, I'm too restricted by society to come out and say it, but in the recesses of inner self-evaluation..... Looking at another with a sense of superiority is a sin. It's a common sin. It's the sin of wanting to take the speck from another's eye. This sin can only be forgiven by repentance. Repentance is powerfully life changing when done before a Creator; Who does indeed regard all people as having equal value. |