Peter Singer, professor of philosophy at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and one of the founding fathers of the
Animal Rights Movement, tells us in the opening chapter of his book Rethinking Life and Death that we will be disturbed, made uneasy, and feel besieged by the opinions and suppositions he sets forth. In this Singer does not disappoint.
Singer argues compellingly in the first chapters of the need to qualify when exactly brain death occurs; of the need to decide what is extraordinary measures in keeping someone alive who is in a persistent vegetative state; and the need to determine exactly when life begins. Because medical science can answer these questions to a greater degree of reliability, it is necessary for additional definitive criteria.
At this point Singer takes his observations to a new level, one that Western society and ethical people will have a problem embracing. Singer argues for consideration that all life is not equal, and should not have equal footing in determining their right to live. For example, he applauds those cultures that choose infanticide to control rising birth rates. While he argues that all precautions should be taken not to have unwanted or disabled children, he sees no harm in choosing to
cause the death of an infant at birth should its disability or presence not be wanted. He favors a 28-day period post birth for parents to decide whether their child should be
allowed to live or die.
However, Singer does say that he is not inhumane. He does not feel it is acceptable to cause suffering. All who chose or are chosen to die, should be allowed to do so in the least painful way as possible. His argument is that we must embrace a new ethos in terms of life and death, as the old one is no longer viable. He feels that science has shown that man is nothing more than another animal life form that exists on the same plane as other life forms. He sees the Judeo-Christian world-view as antiquated, its moral absolutes as outmoded.
Singer believes that the old ethical approach to life and death cannot survive much longer. His argument is not whether it should be replaced, but what shape the new ethics will take. Time will only tell if modern civilization is ready to accept such an elitist viewpoint about life and death.