Euthanasia and Infanticide - Essay Example

Peter Singer: On Euthanasia, Abortion, and Infanticide Life is one that is considered sacred. Human beings came to life so that they can serve their purpose. In life, not everything will turn out as expected. There are instances when something will eventually deviate and life, complicated as it is, may be disrupted. Peter Singer, the highly acclaimed philosopher, and educator from Princeton University had been taking bullets for his controversial stand regarding issues that are quite sensitive to the prickly society.

He had authored several high-profile writings that had critics question his philosophy and morality. His moral and ethical perception may be off t from those with tender sensibilities but when you look at his doctrines in a bigger picture, Singer’s dogma may be quite rational, though not entirely popular. His book, Rethinking Life and Death, conveyed his views on life, the importance of human beings, and how life itself can be dealt with. Singer views euthanasia as valid and acceptable provided that the reason for committing the act is to eliminate pain and suffering, as those in people who have undergone traumatic events that may render them incapacitated and invalid.

He further categorized euthanasia as either voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. To Singer, voluntary euthanasia is assisting in the termination of one’s life, if that person willingly consented and expressed his desire to end his life. Involuntary euthanasia on the other hand is ending one’s life without getting consent but the person concerned may have hinted at the desire to end his life. Non-voluntary euthanasia is the act of ending one’s life, without that person’s consent, because that person is not deemed capable of making a decision, as when the person does not possess the mental faculties and consciousness to make a decision for himself.

Abortion, to Singer, is morally acceptable. Singer defines the act as terminating a conceived human being inside the woman’s womb, on the premise that that child itself has not yet lived a human life, has no consciousness, and has no capacity to feel and live as a human being, unlike those that have already been born. Singer reiterates that to be classified as a viable human being, one must be capable of cognition and autonomy. It is with this belief that he concludes that abortion, through his utilitarian view, becomes permissible, if opted for by the mother.

The controversial philosopher believes that infanticide, the act of killing an innocent child, is allowed, in the instance that that child will be unable to live a normal, rational, and meaningful life. This is in the case wherein the child is born with malformations and congenital anomalies that would later render that child incapacitated. Singer thinks people that have mental and physical deficiencies may not be able to live a full life, given their condition, and that ending their lives is an acceptable solution.

He believes that to prevent further problems and suffering, both for the parents and child, killing the child can be an option. Peter Singer’s views regarding these controversial issues are due to his utilitarian stand. Utilitarians believe that actions are morally justifiable if the aim of the deed is to achieve the best possible results. He alludes that happiness and productivity can only be achieved when one is purposeful. Though his stance on these issues is met with harsh critiques, Peter Singer reiterates that the decision to condone and commit is yet subjected to individual preference and decision-making.

I personally believe that life is a gift. It cannot be measured by time, intellect, reason, and by circumstances. As it is, life has been given to be nourished and let flourish. From the moment of conception to the day of birth, a child would always be a welcome addition. I do not agree with Peter Singer’s views, but I respect his own stand on the issues. He may have his reasons, whatever they may be. I have always been firm in my belief that people are always given the right to think, the right to choose, and the right to live.