Trevor Whetstone

Peter Singer, a bio-ethics professor has been invited to teach at Princeton University starting next July. What makes many outside of the campus grounds question the appointment are Professor Singer’s long held beliefs. The Australian philosopher believes that infanticide is sometimes a positive good and advocates the theory that opposing equal rights for animals and humans is tantamount to racism.

One of Singer’s most notable scholarly accomplishments is his book, Practical Ethics, in which he tackles ethical questions in regard to abortion, euthanasia, sex, race, equality, and animal rights. He is known throughout his field for his utilitarian ideology and is an object of admiration for many rising scholars.

"Parents may with good reason regret that a disabled child was ever born," he explains. In these cases he states that "the effect that the death of a child will have on its parents can be a reason for, rather than against, killing it."

Professor Singer, however, does not discriminate against the disabled alone. "Beings who cannot see themselves as entities with a future cannot have any preferences about their own future existence," theorizes Singer. Therefore, his argument follows, because even a healthy infant cannot reason its own self-existence, the right to kill it is justified.

Princeton contends that they do not necessarily seek faculty members with whom they are in agreement. However, as one Princeton undergraduate questions, "Possibly there are more reasonable minds that could teach us?"

While Princeton has used "academic freedom" as a defense of its controversial hiring, many question whether the same department that hired Singer would give equal consideration, for instance, to a pro-life advocate holding views that are deemed unfashionable by the academic establishment.

Tim Webster, a member of Princeton Pro-Life, asserts, "Most alumni have been defending his appointment," explaining that the faculty "will take a strong stance for him" as well.

Critics of Singer point out that the propagation of infanticide, unlimited abortion, and euthanasia are in line with the Nazi ideology spread throughout Germany during the 1920s, ‘30s, and early ‘40s. Professor Singer attempts to refute his critics by saying that the Nazis’ ideas weren’t inspired by an attitude designed to relieve suffering. Singer contends that his ideas, since they are backed by good intentions, should not be compared with those of the Nazis.

Critics of Singer point out that there were, in fact, "good intentions" to improve society prior to Nazi governmental control. Karl Binding, a distinguished jurist, and Alfred Hoche, a prominent psychiatrist, co-authored a book entitled, "The Justification of Life Devoid of Value." This was one of the most influential books published in Germany prior to the Nazis’ rise to power.

Among the often overblown campus accusations of racism, sexism, classism, and agesim, Professor Singer brings to Princeton an opposition to a new form of intolerance—"speciesism." Singer professes, "To give preference to the life of a being simply because that being is a member of our species would put us in the same position as racists who give their own preference to those who are members of their race."

Singer goes on to speculate that those who continue to eat animal flesh produced by farmers, are no better than white, Southern slave owners. A major reason why "speciesism" is a great concern for the professor is that "Sometimes animals may suffer more because of their more limited understanding."

Singer’s orthodoxy of relativism knows no bounds. "No objective assessment," reveals the incoming Princeton professor, "can support the view that it is always worse to kill members of our species who are not persons than members of other species who are." This idea is based on the premise that "some non-human animals are persons" and some humans are not persons.

Amy Gutman, a spokesman for Princeton, argues, "Princeton would be impoverished without professors whose work is intellectually provocative, as is Professor Singer’s."

Professor Singer has a long list of radical thought that goes beyond animal rights, infanticide, and euthanasia. According to Singer, in relation to payment, need and effort matter much more than merit obtained by ability. He promotes sterilization in Third World countries. And he advocates that the ends justify the means, even if it translates into "running some risk of contributing to a general decline in obedience to law."

Singer concludes his book Practical Ethics by stating, "Ethically indefensible behavior is not always irrational," leaving many to wonder if there is anything "practical," about Professor Singer’s, or Princeton’s, "ethics."