Friday, July 20, 2012
Peter Singer and Christian Ethics
I recommend my friend Charles Camosy's new book, "Peter Singer and Christian Ethics: Beyond Polarization." The book is a creative and helpful reframing of the discourse surrounding Singer's work.
Camosy is, without doubt, going to take some criticism from those who believe that he is working (too) hard to rehabilitate Singer's reputation in the Christian community. He is trying to do that, make no mistake. And while making clear his disagreements with Singer, one will not find much moral outrage in Camosy's tone when confronting some of Singer's truly monstrous (in my view) positions. In Camosy's defense, though, moral outrage is not his motivation here. He is walking a very tricky line, urging the Christian community to step back from the categorical demonization of Singer and discern areas of common interest and shared premises without glossing over foundational and unbridgeable differences. I think he succeeds on that front. He does not hesitate to point out when Singer's arguments fall short on their own terms, though he writes with an optimism -- with some basis, given some of Singer's recent comments -- that Singer is still a work in progress, and that his thought is trending favorably.
Even putting the exploration of Singer's work to the side, the book provides an excellent and accessible analysis of current debates surrounding issues such as euthanasia and abortion. And his chapter on non-human animals makes -- at least for this factory-farm consuming Christian -- for some uncomfortable reading. It also provides a rather jarring experience, as Camosy seems angrier with his fellow Christians for our total disregard of non-human animals than with Singer for his views on infanticide. My guess is that this difference is attributable to two factors: 1) Camosy is angered by Christian hypocrisy, and Singer, for all his morally reprehensible views, is no hypocrite; and 2) there is no shortage of anger surrounding the issue of abortion and infanticide, while anger, at least among the Christian community, is virtually non-existent when it comes to our treatment of non-human animals.
It's a provocative book that should be widely read, and one that is worthy of sustained conversation.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/07/peter-singer-and-christian-ethics.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
I am about a third of the way through, and whatever one may think of Peter Singer, I think you will be impressed with Charles Camosy (f you aren't already from his other endeavors, such as the Catholic Moral Theology blog). The book is amazingly readable, and not without surprises. Peter Singer rejects, for example, the "Famous Violinist" argument in favor of abortion even accepting the personhood of the unborn child. It is not too much of a burden, he maintains, to be attached to someone whose life depends on you for nine months. You can give up 9 months of your freedom if it will save the violinist's life. Peter Singer also believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and that abortion law should be determined by legislatures (and the people), not by courts. Also, even though brief, some of the quotes from Singer about animal suffering, and how much we are responsible for it because our choice of foods, can't help but jar you into taking the issue more seriously.