|
|
 |
 |
Harry Gensler SJ (above, right), professor of
philosophy at JCU, and Peter Singer, Ira DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at
Princeton University, debated the sanctity of life before a
packed Lombardo Conference room audience on Monday (Dec. 4). Earlier in the day (above, left) Prof.
Singer addressed the 800-plus students in the First Year Seminar in Kulas
Auditorium on "The Great Ape Project," a book and initiative he
has co-authored with Paola Cavalieri. It is one of the texts under study
in the First Year Seminar (FYS), whose theme is "borders and
boundaries. The afternoon presentation was co-sponsored by FYS and the Program in Applied Ethics."
|
|
Click on image of computer
speakers for audio presentation
|
|
Religious Studies Associate Professor Thomas Schubeck
SJ, in his welcome prior to the afternoon presentation, acknowledged that Prof.
Singer "holds views of human life sharply at odds with Catholic
thought" but noted the value of "putting a faith tradition in
conversation with secular ideas with which it may disagree." He
called for a "civil and reasoned" dialogue, "as our
university seeks truth through the integration of faith and culture. History Professor Robert Kolesar, FYS chair, also made a similar introduction to Prof. Singer's earlier presentation to first-year students."
|
|
|
Paul Thomson, associate professor of philosophy, introduced Prof. Singer,
who presented his views in three segments. Click on the adjacent image to hear each:
|
|
Father Gensler, who called Prof. Singer "perhaps
the most controversial philospher in the world," presented three
objections. Click on the adjacent image to hear each:
|
|
1. The traditional view of the sanctity of human life
cannot be defended in terms of public reasoning.
|
|
1. His perspective is impractical because it makes the
moral status of killing your children too vague. |
|
2. There is no difference between allowing an infant born
with disabilities to die and ending the infant's life. |
|
2. His underlying ethical principle of utilitarianism
leads to absurdity. |
|
3. We should permit voluntary euthanasia and suicide. |
|
3. He dismisses religion too quickly. |
The audience followed with several questions, all but one for Prof.
Singer. As before, click on the image to hear the response.
|
|
1. Paul Thomson used Fr.
Gensler's objections as the first "question" for response by
Prof. Singer. |
|
5. What if
extreme poverty, instead of a medical condition, would cause the child and
the family to suffer? Would you defend killing the child? |
|
2. How do we stop a national
party from using euthanasia as a way of eliminating groups of people? |
|
6. Is
self-awareness part of brain function? |
|
3. (To Fr.
Gensler:) If you defend all members of a rational species over a
non-rational species, how would you consider a non-rational member of a
rational species? |
|
7. So, if we
use self-awareness as the litmus test of who we can kill, then why should
we not, as you write in "Animal Liberation," be able to kill the
chicken who has no ability for self-awareness? |
|
4. Who decides
which characteristics make a child eligible to be killed to avoid a hard
life for the child and inconvenience to the parents? |
|
8. Should
killing a child be placed in the parents' hands when they may be
irrational at the moment? Is it ever right for the doctor to make the
decision? |