As an aspiring ethicist, I find it troubling to know the influence of ethicists such as Peter Singer. Not only are his ideas influencing academia, but academia trickles down to daily life and the thoughts of the “average” citizen. The Princeton professor of bioethics promotes a startlingly low view of human dignity. In his most recent debacle of an article, Singer proposes that our generation ought to be the last.
In his New York Times opinion piece titled, “Should This Be the Last Generation?” Singer begins by asking questions that I have recently considered in my own study of bioethics. Questions surrounding procreation (or the common and undesirable term “reproduction”) are important and pertinent. Yet, his solution to the question of whether and why to bring children into the world misses the point and value of life. Life is not ours to create and take at our own will. In fact, the tendency to refer to creation of new life as “reproduction” rather than “procreation” implies that babies are primarily ours for the making, rather than gifts of infinite value.
Dr. Gene Fant, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Union University, has an excellent piece at First Things explaining the travesty of Singer’s logic on human life. In a follow-up piece, Joe Carter offers further insight into Singer's dangerous ethics. Please take the time to look at these pieces. Human life is too valuable to be treated as if we have the right to determine its intrinsic worth or worthlessness.