By LAURA SASS
Executive Editor
Dr. Peter Singer sat
down with a Rider News reporter for a one-on-one interview on animal treatment
and other issues.
You have been
credited with having jump-started the animal rights movement with your book,
Animal Liberation. What changes have you seen since its publication, and what
issues do you feel still need to be addressed?
Peter Singer Yes, there
are many things that have changed. First of all, now there is an animal
movement, which there wasn’t when the book was published, and there has
been a change in the way people think about animals. There have been a lot of
changes in Europe. Some of them have been really good, like eventually phasing
out inhuman practices on farm animals. The fur industry is practically obsolete
[in Europe]. Even here, there have been advances, such as testing animals for
cosmetics and such. That doesn’t really occur anymore.
In Practical Ethics,
you divide species into two categories: persons and nonpersons. Can you please
explain the difference between the two groups?
P.S. I used the term
persons for a being who is self-aware, or aware of themselves in relation to
time. I think that it is a useful term to use because it is not tied to a
membership in a species in the way that human is. Often we talk about when does
human life begin, but that’s not the important question. The more
important question is when are you a being that has a serious right to life, or
when are you a being who is in a position to have your interests considered. I
don’t really use the term nonpersons myself. It sort of has negative
undertones.
Am I correct in
interpreting your views to mean that you feel that animals should be accorded
the same equality as humans, and to not do so is discrimination?
P.S. They should be
given equal consideration of interests. That is the term I like to use. We
shouldn’t think that the suffering of an animal counts less because it is
not a human being.
Another issue you
are notorious for is your belief that infants with severe disabilities should
be euthanized. How do you defend that view?
P.S. That’s not
quite an accurate statement. What I think is that when a child is born with
severe disabilities the parents should be allowed to decide what is the best
thing for it. I’m not saying that any particular infant should be
euthanized because I don’t think it’s up to me. I think it’s
up to the parents to decide what kind of life they think their infant should
have, and the parents should consult with the doctors, of course. But
essentially, I guess it's because I think that no newborn human baby has the
same right to life as one who can think about their future. So if a life begins
under severe handicaps, sometimes it’s better to end it now and start
again.
Who do you feel
should make the final decision on a disabled infant’s fate?
P.S. Generally it
should be the parents who make that decision. I think doctors should step in to
overrule a parent’s decision if the doctors are convinced that the baby
could have a normal, good life. The baby could be adopted.
And could the
doctors ever overrule a parent’s decision not to euthanize?
P.S. No, but you can
imagine circumstances in which it might be so inhumane, if the child is in such
deep suffering. The doctor should at least be allowed to prescribe painkillers
to ease the suffering, which sometimes shortens the life span.
How do you suggest
such policies should be implemented?
P.S. Well, I
don’t think it will happen first in this country. I think some countries in
Europe are somewhat more open to the idea compared to here. Already doctors in
hospitals make decisions to withdraw treatment so that the baby will die, so
it’s partly about extending the line from simply withholding treatment to
actively killing them.
Another controversy
you have been involved in more recently is the article you wrote for Nerve.com
defending, or at least explaining about, bestiality. What are your views on
this practice?
P.S. I wasn’t
really defending it. I was writing the article to question why we have this
taboo, why it hasn’t been eroded like other taboos about non-reproductive
sex. I think it is an attempt to separate ourselves from animals.
Your appointment to
Princeton a few years ago caused quite a controversy. Have things died down?
P.S. Yes, things have
died down a lot. Really, the protests were only when I was first appointed.
Can you sum up your
general philosophy?
P.S. I think the
consistent stand in my philosophy is that I would like to minimize unnecessary
suffering. I see a lot of unnecessary suffering in the way we treat animals. I
see suffering in someone who has been living with severe disabilities. One of
the questions you didn’t ask me was about physician-assisted suicide or
voluntary euthanasia. I don’t think that should be prevented. If a person
is dying of cancer, for example, and they have just had enough, I don’t
think they should be held back. That would just cause unnecessary suffering.
If students could
remember just one thing from your lecture tonight, what should it be?
P.S. From what I said
tonight, I guess I would like them to walk away with the idea that the way we
treat animals today, including animals that appear on their dinner plates,
involves a great deal of suffering which really can be avoided.