Peter Singer - Rethinking Life and Death - Essay Example

Singer as a philosopher had a distinctive perception of life and death. He believed that every person has the right to decide whether to live or not. However, I strongly disagree with his idea of infanticide where an innocent soul will be killed against the will of God.

Killing a person at any stage of his life is a crime. There can be no sufficient reasons for killing a person whether he is disabled, unborn, or handicapped. Singer being a philosopher failed to understand the divine essence of the human soul. So it could be easier for him to argue towards infanticide because he considers infants as just a creature. Infanticide is a matter of moral crime on whichever ground it may be committed. The very simple logical reason against infanticide is that killing a person by another person is utter cruelty. Nature has given us this precious life and only nature has the right to take it back.

A person is born because he has the right to live. Human intervention in the life of a person is strongly unrecommended. When God has decided to create a being, he wants that being to live and experience life. Life is a gift of God, hence it should be treated with respect and dignity. It is valuable for the infant that he is born as it is his destiny. Every person has a soul in him, right from the beginning of his conception. The soul is divine and should be allowed to live its life. According to Hindu philosophy, a soul could take a body with disability and limitations as per its deeds in a past life. So it has to undergo all the pain and suffering of its disabled life as this is its fate.

Who has given us the right to take a life, just because an infant is in the growing stage does not mean that it is less of a human being. Singer is definitely unethical in suggesting infanticide as a means to avoid the existence of a disabled person. If an infant were to ask whether to live or die, then definitely it will want life. Then what gives the right for Singer to advocate the killing of infants. He cannot separate from who may be lived or who may be killed. Infanticide is wrong because even if the biological parents don’t want the baby, other people do. Destroying a life only for one’s selfish motive is ignorance, cruelty, and immoral.

Infants are to be protected and not destroyed. They should be allowed to live in whatever condition they are and not be disturbed in their natural course of life. The singer has a view that newborns are non –person and hence killing them is not unethical. But every human being was an infant once and if it were destroyed in the budding stage how would have people existed. Infanticide can be categorized as crueler because an innocent being, who just entered earth is being destroyed for selfish motives of people. We cannot kill an infant just for the convenience of certain people. One life should respect another life as well as God and Nature. Singer even argues that all life is not the same in all and this is totally wrong because the entire people have a soul of an equal divine value.

To kill an infant means depriving it of all the opportunities to enjoy life and experience the growth process. Singer being a philosopher has a moral right to spread love and compassion among humanity. He should think for the welfare of people rather than the destruction of it. I strongly disagree with Singer as I believe infants need all the care and attention from parents whether he is healthy or disabled. Killing a life is an atrocious deed and this thought in itself is an evil tendency. I believe that an infant should be allowed to live freely in society and should be given all the support from their family members. Finally, I can assert that Singer is inhumane and immoral in advocating infanticide as it is a social crime.