Singer, men ikke songwriter

En av de mer interessante figurene jeg følger, er Peter Singer. Og vi snakker ikke om en amerikansk folkesanger.

Singer er i stedet en "bioetiker" med fokus på at etikk må inspireres av naturen, eller i det minste ikke underslå biologiske fakta.

Konsekvensen av et slikt naturalistisk syn er... lærerikt.

Nå har Dinesh D'Souza (en person jeg også har et mer enn lettere ambivalent forhold til, men alltid tankestimulerende) debattert Singer. Og skrevet en - selvsagt helt nøytral - kommentar til dette.

D'Souza legger som vanlig ikke mye i mellom.

Singer is a mild-mannered fellow who speaks calmly and lucidly. Yet you wouldn't have to read his work too long to find his extreme positions. He cheerfully advocates infanticide and euthanasia and, in almost the same breath, favors animal rights. Even most liberals would have qualms about third-trimester abortions; Singer does not hesitate to advocate what may be termed fourth-trimester abortions, i.e., the killing of infants after they are born.

Singer writes, "My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others." Singer argues that even pigs, chickens, and fish have more signs of consciousness and rationality—and, consequently, a greater claim to rights—than do fetuses, newborn infants, and people with mental disabilities. "Rats are indisputably more aware of their surroundings, and more able to respond in purposeful and complex ways to things they like or dislike, than a fetus at 10- or even 32-weeks gestation. … The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy."

Some people consider Singer a provocateur who says outrageous things just to get attention. But Singer is deadly serious about his views and—as emerged in our debate—has a consistent rational basis for his controversial positions.

D'Souza ser for seg at de såkalt nye ateister grøsser over Singer. Han ødelegger for deres sak. Han går for langt. Det hører ikke med i det gode selskap i 2009 å gjøre nietzchianske omforminger av alle verdier.

Det er kort sagt (vi kunne altså sagt det langt lenger) ikke kosher i dagens samfunn, enten vi foretrekker teselskaper eller pubrunder, å se inn i avgrunnen.

Vi får bare håpe at Singer ikke blir tatt på alvor. For vi er nok flere enn nye ateister som ikke helt kan svelge denne type etikk. Enten vi nå mener vi har har grunnlag for det eller ei.