INTRODUCTION

If abortion is the first issue which jumps to mind when thinking about why aproject like this one seems counter-intuitive, then end-of-life issues mightcome next. Peter Singer's championing of euthanasia seems hopelessly at oddswith an ethic that understands such killing to be intrinsically evil. Indeed,the Church claims that euthanasia is “hostile to life itself” andpart of a violent culture of death. And Singer's support of euthanasia has beenresisted, not only by Christians, but by secular groups as well. A recentexample was the advocacy group Not Dead Yet sending a letter to the editor ofthe Sunday New York Times Magazine claiming that Singerdevalues the lives of those with special needs. Nor has the blowback from suchgroups been limited to the United States. In an appendix to the second editionof Practical Ethics, which he entitled “On BeingSilenced in Germany,” Singer details several examples where hisinvitations to present his scholarship were withdrawn under pressure from thesegroups. Sometimes his speaking events were canceled, and on occasions where theywere allowed to go ahead, Singer was often whistled at or shouted down. On oneoccasion, much of the crowd simply repeated the chant “Singerraus ! Singer raus !”(Get out, Singer, get out!) The chant was so loud and sustained that he wasforced to abandon his presentation.

Despite a motivated coalition of both Christians and secularists against him,Singer maintains a very strong and consistent position on euthanasia andend-of-life issues.

The previous six chapters have shown us in specific detail both how Peter Singer and Christian ethics can mutually push each other, and also how much they have in common. Indeed, it is precisely because of how much they have in common that the arguments are so interesting and productive. But in concluding this book let me pull back from these details and make some ‘big picture’ observations and suggestions.

HOW PETER SINGER HELPS PUSH CHRISTIAN ETHICS

Perhaps Singer's most important gift to Christians, and indeed to all who care about ethics, is his formidable and authentic push to think and act consistently with regard to one's ethical beliefs. He does this with his own crowd (the classic example being his insistence that one must support infanticide for the same reasons one supports abortion), but he of course calls out his opponents for their inconsistencies as well. As we saw in Chapter 3, he argues that when anti-abortionists claim to support and defend life, they almost never mean what they say. And while he is certainly correct that most self-described pro-lifers inconsistently limit their concerns to topics related to abortion and euthanasia, this unfortunate situation has been in the process of changing.

Introduction

In the last three chapters, despite there being significant and wide-rangingoverlap, Peter Singer and the Church generally have come to significantlydifferent final conclusions. But with regard to duties to the poor, thesimilarities between the two approaches are absolutely striking. There areimportant differences that we will discuss in due course, but with this topic wewill see most clearly how much the two approaches have in common.

INTRODUCTION

Some more traditional approaches to academic ethics might havebegun a book like this by exploring the topic of thischapter. In comparing Peter Singer and Christian ethics, one of the first thingsthat will likely spring to mind (at least for an academic ethicist) is whatappears to be a substantial difference in ethical theory. After all, as autilitarian, Singer's goal is to maximize preference satisfaction, while theChurch has moral rules which seem to directly contradict this way of approachingethics. But there are good reasons to leave discussion of the theoreticalapproaches of both Singer and the Church until after applied issues have beenexamined. If we had begun with the differences in ethical theory this might havemade it more difficult to see the broad-based agreement in how each approachapplies their theory in the practical world. In addition, seeing the overlap inthe realm of the practical can help us clear the conceptual space forunderstanding how the ethical theories of Peter Singer and the Church might notbe as far apart as one might imagine. And especially in his more recentwritings, Singer's approach attempts to downplay differences in ethical theorywith the goal of getting many different kinds of people, with many differentapproaches to ethics, to agree with his practical conclusions.

INTRODUCTION

If one is after productive exchange between Peter Singer and Christian ethics, it might seem that abortion is an odd place to begin. In his important and comprehensive work Practical Ethics, Singer suggests that

He believes that the overwhelming majority of abortions are justified because a woman's preferences will almost always outweigh the (at best) rudimentary preferences of a fetus. And as we will soon see, Singer notoriously goes further and argues that the right to an abortion also implies a right to infanticide, because a newborn infant, like a fetus, has few valuable preferences. Contrast this point of view with Pope John Paul ii in Evangelium Vitae:

General moral principles

Abortion

There is a time-honored strategy for young people at an academic conference: peruse the publishers' tables while hoping that a conversation breaks out with a really important thinker with whom you've always wanted to exchange. Not that long ago, I was fortunate enough to have this strategy pay off with one of my favorite distinguished Christian ethicists. I had read all of his books, and was anxious to get his reaction to a book I was writing on Peter Singer and to the fact that I was going to meet with Singer personally to discuss my project. He responded with a worried glance and said, “Be careful, Charlie, you're going to like him.”

INTRODUCTION

Peter Singer is perhaps best known for championing the moral status and ethicaltreatment of non-human animals. Indeed, he might be the person most responsiblefor bringing such issues to the Western world's attention. Of Singer'scontribution, the Christian philosopher Robert Wennberg says:

As it has gone through its multiple editions, Animal Liberationhas generally become accepted as the seminal work in the field. And Singer hasgone on to write even more in recent years on this topic with The Way WeEat: Why Our Food Choices Matter and In Defense ofAnimals. That one person could have this kind of impact on how wethink about other animals is simply extraordinary.