As you all know, we've had a thread in the past few days about Peter Singer,
the bioethicist who advocates euthanasia for disabled newborns, etc.  A
fellow listmember sent this article to me privately and wondered if it might
be appropriate for our list.  Because it is directed at Christians, I
deleted the sections that referenced overtly orthodox Christian beliefs.  I
did this in order that those of you who are not Christian would not just hit
the "delete" key in response without reading the author's base points.

The author is Charles Colson (yes, of "Watergate" fame) who became a
Christian while serving his prison term for his involvement in the Watergate
affair.  After his release, he started Prison Fellowship Ministries.  The
following article (edited) is part of a daily radio series produced by PFM:

Putting His Money Where His Mom Is: Peter Singer's Hypocrisy
by Charles Colson


Peter Singer is a professor of ethics at Princeton,
and he's the quintessential moral utilitarian. Singer
believes that an action's morality cannot be judged
by any transcendent standard.  Instead, he suggests
we ask whether a particular action will increase the
sum total of happiness in the world.

For example, as George Will commented about Singer,
"Should one spend a sum to ease the
suffering of a family member or send the same sum to
ease the sufferings of 10 Sudanese?"  Singer's answer
would be to send the money to Sudan, because doing
so would increase the world's total amount of happiness.
He also argues for allowing parents to kill their
handicapped newborns, and favors euthanasia for the
sick and the elderly--people who can no longer enjoy their
lives and who create a burden on others.

But Singer's beliefs were put to the test when his
own mother became sick with Alzheimer's. You
will be relieved to know that, instead of starving
his mother to death and thus increasing the world's
supply of happiness, Singer is behaving hypocritically.
He spends thousands of dollars providing his mother
with nursing home care.

Singer sheepishly acknowledges the hypocrisy of his
actions. "It's not the best use you could make of my
money, that's true," he admits. But he then
rationalizes his inconsistency:  "It does
provide employment for a number of people who find
something worthwhile in what they're doing," he says.

Hogwash.  A better explanation is that Peter Singer
the son trumps Peter Singer the philosopher.

It's one thing to engage in intellectual parlor games
within the safe confines of the academy. In that
setting, denying the sanctity of human life or the
existence of moral absolutes has little, if any,
impact on people's lives.

But in the real world, it means the difference
between life and death.  The last thing people like
Singer want is for people to act in accordance with
their principles when it affects someone they care
about.

The truth of any worldview is authenticated by
how well it depicts reality.  By doing the right
thing by his mother, Singer himself has
demonstrated that his philosophy does not produce
a rational and just society.   He would
be hard pressed to cite a single example of a
healthy, vibrant society that believes that there
isn't anything special about human life. As Singer
himself demonstrates, this belief produces societies
that no one would want to live in--not even him.

In short, Singer's worldview flunks the reality test.

So if you come across someone who tells you
there's nothing special about human life,
ask him which Peter Singer they hope
their kids emulate when they're old and frail:
Peter Singer the avant garde philosopher, or Peter
Singer the hypocrite.

The one who admits, "It is different
when it's your mother."


Copyright (c) 1999 Prison Fellowship Ministries.  Reprinted
with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio
ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Prison Fellowship Ministries(R) may withdraw or modify this
grant of permission at any time.


I think Colson brings home a good point that our "public" values often
change when they impact our private lives.

On a much lighter note, but still on the same topic...

Do any of you remember that comic from the '60s and '70s who would use
complex words out of context?  Well, this past weekend I went on my annual
male-bonding hunting/fishing/camping trip with seven of my best buddies.  We
were all sitting around the campfire, solving the worlds problems.  One of
the guys, Andy (who has a reputation for using words "out of context"),
asked another friend (my family MD, Jeff) what he thought of euthanasia.

Jeff got out the old soapbox and started in.  Trouble was, Andy didn't want
to know what Jeff thought of euthanasia, but echinacea--the herbal
supplement used to boost the body's immune system.  That conversation was
pretty weird--as you can well imagine:

Andy:  "So, Jeff, you're not advocating the use of euthanasia at all?"

Jeff:   "Depends on the severity of the symptoms"

Andy:  "I thought you administered it before symptoms were present"

Jeff:   "WHAT???"

Andy:  "Yeah, I was gonna use it on the kids before the flu season started
this fall"

It went downhill from there.  What a riot!  Made my weekend...

-Kyle

-Kyle