Peter Singer vs. Eva Kittay - Essay Example

Peter Singer vs. Eva Kittay due: Peter Singer vs. Eva Kittay Human disability has been at the center of debate for many centuries. Almost all cultures have criteria for dealing with the disabled in society, ranging from acceptance to killing them. Even in the 21st century, the matter has not yet been resolved, with some ideologies maintaining that the disabled are lesser human beings, subject to correction. Others claim that they are human beings and should be accorded every right and privilege as other people, while still some people will agree with the philosophy that the disabled do not meet the criteria for human beings. Cognitive disability is a special area of interest for most philosophers. For instance, Peter Singer, in his article Speciesism and Moral Status, challenges two closely related societal views. He explores the view that species membership is important to moral status, and that all human life is of equal value. Singer lists several criteria that a complete human being should meet, including the ability to communicate verbally and possession of academic skills. According to Singer’s argument, mentally retarded individuals should not be considered equal to other humans without disabilities. He compares them to animals and notes that some animals are more intelligent than the mentally retarded. An alternative view is presented by Eva Feder Kittay. She maintains that the cognitive ly disabled in society are as important as other human beings without disability. Kittay gives a personal experience of her daughter, Sesha, who has a severe cognitive disability. According to her argument, cognitively disabled people possess more than academic skills or the ability to reason, as Singer claims. Kittay claims that being a human beings is not simply having a bundle of capacities. Rather, “it’s a way that you are, a way you are in the world, a way you are with another” (Kittay, 2010 p.408). In this essay I will explore some of the philosophical shortcomings of Singer’s arguments that render his conclusions invalid. Diversity The concept of valuing diversity is accepted in society. Diversity can be described as the variations that are present within a species. In this context, we can consider diversity to represent the many variations in the human species such as the difference in height, weight, genetic composition, abilities and contribution to society among others. Valuing diversity is based mainly on the fact that we have a responsibility to value and accept the nature of the human race, including the inherent differences. For example, there are many professions in the world today, and only people with certain abilities can comfortably adopt a specific profession. As a result of this diversity, society is made whole, with the different capabilities complementing each other. The cognitive disabled in society make up part of the diversity in the human race. Singer’s argument on equality does not consider the alternative view of the importance of diversity. He claims that since the mentally retarded do not possess the level of cognitive ability that is allegedly supposed to classify them as humans, they cannot be guaranteed the same rights as other able-bodied humans. However, a closer look at the interactions between the cognitive disabled and ‘normal’ people shows a different scenario. The contribution of the mentally disabled to society may not necessarily be through scientific inventions or sports, but they bring joy and happiness to many families, contrary to popular belief. For instance, regarding her relationship with her severely cognitively disabled daughter, Kittay (2009) states that: “If one grants that the “special relationship” between mother and child requires moral recognition, then I need first to make vivid the case that this relationship in the case of a child who lacks some “normal capacities” is indistinguishable from any mother-child relationship. If this is so, then I believe I can make a case that has as its conclusion that the moral personhood of even the severely cognitively disabled must be granted.” (p.606) As a result, they should not be segregated but rather accepted into society as they also have a contribution to make. Scholars agree that diversity provides a better alternative to Singer’s theory of ethics (Lafaye & Cabrero, 2010). Socialization Humans are not the only social beings, just as Singer notes (Singer, 2009). The essence of a society is to bring together people of a diverse nature to complement each other’s abilities. It is a fact that everyone needs help with something, even the most intelligent and strongest people by Singer’s standards. The cognitive disabled are no different from other humans, only that society is structured in such a way that makes them needier and less independent than most people. Singer’s view of the cognitively disabled is based on a very narrow line of though, of which conclusions made may not reflect the issue wholly. The mentally handicapped in society may need help to accomplish certain tasks, but in the process contribute immensely to the whole concept of socialization However, even with the fewer privileges offered to them, the mentally retarded have a special contribution to society as a unit. For instance, there are people who are gifted with compassion or generosity, and it is through their actions to help the mentally disabled that we recognize them. Furthermore, some may even be smarter than the average human being in some areas. Recently, a study was conducted on a cohort of students and showed that most people who are intelligent may have a bipolar disorder (Gale et al., 2013). However, the authors did not investigate if in reality it is the bipolar people who are intelligent. Such studies shed some light that most disabled people have other abilities, only that society does not recognize them. Definition of a Human Being Human beings can be defined from several perspectives. From the biological and evolutionary point of view, they are supposed to be bipedal, erect, have larger brain capacities and an increased level of manual dexterity. From a sociology perspective, humans are classified based on their behavior and ability to interact, including characteristics such as increased tool use and formation of larger, more complicated societies. Other fields of knowledge have their different definitions of whom a human being is supposed to be. There is, however, no single definition that encompasses all these disciplines, resulting to different conclusions on how a human being should behave or be treated. According to Singer’s definition of a human being, it is only the cognitive ability that matters while making the classification. He even suggests that if there are other nonhumans who may share the same cognitive ability as ‘normal’ humans, then they can be considered human (Singer, 2009). Clearly, his definition is very narrow because if people with disabilities in other parts of their bodies apart from the brain are considered human, so should the mentally handicapped. Therefore, it would be erroneous to conclude that cognitive ability is the only valid criteria for human beings. Societal Structure and Speciesism Society, for many years, has been characterized with classes. People are classified based on their level of education, social background, wealth possessed and careers and many more types of criteria. The same is happening in Singer’s argument. He uses the term ‘speciesism’ to refer to members of a common species. He further lists the various criteria that he thinks disqualify the mentally disabled as humans and likens them to animals claiming that some animals are more ‘human’ than the mentally handicapped. The way society is structured today contributes largely to his line of thought. Human nature makes us want to feel part of a group or have an identity, thus the many classes. People of the same class are supposed to share at least one characteristic, even though they may differ in every other aspect. According to Singer’s argument, it is only the cognitive ability that matters in this case. What Singer is describing is a class of human beings who share the characteristic of the ability to communicate verbally and understand most concepts, and has nothing to do with speciesism. As a matter of fact, a species is defined biologically to consist of organisms that are capable of exchanging genes and producing non-sterile offspring. However, there is a lack of a universally accepted definition of a species. Thus most people embrace and defend specific definitions of the terms based on personal agendas (George & Mayden, 2005). Therefore, to fit in this class (which he wrongly refers to as ‘human beings’), one has to meet the criteria that he describes in his article. Individualism A closer look at the arguments presented by Singer shows that the main message being advocated is individualism. Most of the people who claim that the disabled are not complete human beings have their interests in mind. It is common for potential parents to argue that they would prefer not have a disabled child; as they do not want the child to suffer as a result of the disability. Additionally, what they are really afraid of is the commitment and extra responsibility that comes with having a disabled child, more so a mentally handicapped one. People are more concerned with the impact of having a mentally disabled child on their daily lives, more than the amount of ‘suffering’ the child would have to go through. Singer agrees with this statement as he writes in his article: “Consider pregnant women who are told their child will have a cognitive disability - and of course the cognitive disability that most pregnant women are told about is a relatively mild one, Down syndrome. And yet we know that 85 percent of the women who are told that their fetus carries the extra chromosome that causes Down syndrome elect to terminate the pregnancy.” (p. 580) Most people assume that there is much suffering in the lives of the mentally disabled but they have no means to prove their claims. According to Singer’s view, classifying them as nonhumans is supposed to solve the issue of discrimination of the mentally handicapped. Clearly, this line of thought is not correct since alienating them further only creates animosity. The Need for Social Change A majority of the evils present in society today are usually created by humans. Humans set the rules for what is supposed to be good or bad and which actions are right or wrong. In Singer’s case, the mentally handicapped have been labeled lesser human beings owing to their difficulty in learning and contributing academically to society. It is not a recent trend for disabled people to be discriminated against. All along, philosophers have come up with theories and explanations of how disabled people should be treated and whether they can be given the same rights as other people and more recently, whether indeed they are people. However, the problem lies not in the physical and mental capabilities of these people, but in the structure of the society. A social change would help to understand and accept them as fellow human beings with other gifts. First, society needs to accept them as they are. Everyone has a responsibility to take care of the disadvantaged instead of stigmatizing them. The situation gets worse when scholars with misguided notion try to devise ways to change the disabled to appear more like the ‘normal’ version of human beings. An example of such an incident happened in a hospital where a young girl with a severe mental disability received high doses of estrogen as a growth attenuation measure, followed by a hysterectomy and breast bud removal. When asked why they accepted the treatment, the parents of the girl said that they had to prevent her from getting bigger and heavier. The rationale offered was so that the couple could continue taking care of the young girl comfortably (Liao, Savulescu & Sheehan, 2007). The fact that a couple may decide to subject their child to such treatment shows how unaccepted mentally handicapped people are in society. An ideal society is one which does not discriminate against any of its members based on their differences, and most countries adopt this philosophy as law. Still, there is widespread social segregation based on race, wealth and many more. Social change begins with educating the children about diversity and accepting people as they are regardless of our differences. However, education is not confined within classroom walls. The adults should set the example to the children by practicing what they teach them because a child learns very easily from observation than an adult. Furthermore, the child is likely to initiate a behavior change based on the observations (Bushman & Huesmann, 2006). The whole process of socialization needs to be reviewed to include education and a culture that favors the handicapped in the society, especially the mentally disabled. Also, the children should be taught about humanity and the importance of valuing human life since, without humanity, there can never be societies. Apart from the social change, the mentally handicapped need to be represented politically and legally. Most countries recognize the disabled in their constitution but largely seclude the mentally disabled. They need to be empowered more than just being given charity donations because dependence on other people predisposes them to poverty, neglect and risk of getting ill (Nussbaum, 2009). With the correct representation, the mentally handicapped can feel they are a part of the society and live full lives. Most theorists, however, try to alienate them even more. Conclusion To recap, we can see that the ideas proposed by Singer create more problems than solutions. The handicapped in society have been discriminated against for centuries, therefore, proposing that they are lesser human beings only adds to their alienation. Singer’s stance on whether the mentally handicapped are human beings is deeply flawed and does not make sense. A step towards solving the societal problem of dealing with the mentally handicapped begins with social change. The society needs to embrace them and accept them as they are. According to Kittay, there is more to the human status apart from sound cognitive ability. Theorists also have a responsibility to be careful when making philosophical explorations because scientific knowledge should be aimed at improving the society, not leading to its detriment. References Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2006). Short-term and long-term effects of violent media on aggression in children and adults. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 160(4), 348-352. Gale, C. R., Batty, G. D., McIntosh, A. M., Porteous, D. J., Deary, I. J., & Rasmussen, F. (2013). Is bipolar disorder more common in highly intelligent people? A cohort study of a million men. Molecular psychiatry, 18(2), 190-194. George, A. L., & Mayden, R. L. (2005). Species concepts and the Endangered Species Act: how a valid biological definition of species enhances the legal protection of biodiversity. Nat. Resources J., 45, 369. Kittay, E. F. (2009). The personal is philosophical is political: A philosopher and mother of a cognitively disabled person sends notes from the battlefield. Metaphilosophy, 40(3‐4), 606-627. Kittay, E. F. (2010). The Personal is Philosophical is Political. In Kittay, E. & Carlson, L. (Eds.), Cognitive Disability and its Challenge to Moral Philosophy. (pp. 393-412). London: Wiley-Blackwell Lafaye, C. G., & Cabrero, J. R. (2010). Diversity ethics. An alternative to Peter Singer’s ethics. Dilemata, (3). Liao, S., Savulescu, J., & Sheehan, M. (2007). The Ashley Treatment: Best Interests, Convenience, and Parental Decision‐Making. Hastings Center Report, 37(2), 16-20. Nussbaum, M. (2009). The capabilities of people with cognitive disabilities. Metaphilosophy, 40(3‐4), 331-351. Singer, P. (2009). Speciesism and moral status. Metaphilosophy, 40(3‐4), 567-581. Read More