{"id":4091,"date":"2017-04-20T09:36:38","date_gmt":"2017-04-20T17:36:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/e2medianetwork\/?p=4091"},"modified":"2017-04-20T09:36:38","modified_gmt":"2017-04-20T17:36:38","slug":"breakpoint-peter-singer-defends-abuse","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/e2medianetwork\/2017\/04\/breakpoint-peter-singer-defends-abuse\/","title":{"rendered":"BreakPoint: Peter Singer Defends Abuse"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\"\"<\/h3>\n

We say it often: ideas have consequences; bad ideas have victims. And a certain, consistent Princeton bioethicist continues to show just how true that is.<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/p>\n

How do we know what\u2019s right? Great minds have wrestled with that question for much of history. Is it doing our duty regardless of the consequences? Is it doing whatever a virtuous person would do? Is it doing what brings the most happiness to the most people?<\/p>\n

That last option\u2014the greatest good for the greatest number\u2014is the basic premise behind an ethical theory called \u201cutilitarianism,\u201d whose main champion today is Princeton Professor Peter Singer. In his book, \u201cPractical Ethics,\u201d he presses this logic to chilling, yet consistent, conclusions, arguing, for example, that killing babies who are born disabled is not only acceptable, but may be morally necessary.\"we<\/p>\n

Why? Singer believes the happiness of able-bodied persons trumps the rights of those with disabilities. Such beliefs are horrifying enough in the classroom, but they rarely stay there.<\/p>\n

Enter Rutgers ethicist Anna Stubblefield, who, in 2015, was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to twelve years in prison. Her victim, a thirty-year-old man with cerebral palsy, identified as \u201cD.J.,\u201d has never spoken a word in his life, and is dependent on caregivers for his basic needs.<\/p>\n

Using a controversial technique known as \u201cfacilitated communication,\u201d Stubblefield claims she helped D.J. break his lifelong silence by supporting his hands as he typed on a keyboard. Eventually, D.J.\u2019s family came to believe he had the mental capacity of an adult, and even enrolled him in college courses.<\/p>\n

Then Stubblefield made an announcement to D.J.\u2019s family that changed everything: \u201cWe\u2019re in love.\u201d Believing she had received D.J.\u2019s consent via facilitated communication, the married Stubblefield consummated a romantic relationship with this disabled man. A New Jersey jury decided that the act constituted sexual assault.<\/p>\n

In response, in a recent op-ed at the New York Times, Peter Singer and Jeff McMahan argue that Stubblefield\u2019s 12-year sentence is too harsh and that D.J. was capable of more communication than the judge or jury give him credit for. But their next argument is truly horrifying.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf we assume,\u201d <\/em>they write, \u201cthat he is profoundly cognitively impaired, we should concede that he cannot understand the normal significance of sexual relations between persons or the meaning and significance of sexual violation. In that case, he is incapable of giving or withholding informed consent\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

They go on to claim that D.J. probably enjoyed the experience, so it wasn\u2019t that monstrous of a crime. In other words, because those with profound disabilities can\u2019t fully comprehend what\u2019s happening, assaulting them isn\u2019t the same as assaulting a person in possession of full mental faculties.<\/p>\n

Now, let me be clear: This reasoning is fully consistent with Singer\u2019s utilitarian ethics, which teaches that net happiness\u2014not objective concepts like human rights, dignity, or duty\u2014is the standard of right and wrong. And this story shows why ideas like this are so much more than academic debates.<\/p>\n

Utilitarian reasoning justifies all numbers of atrocities, from experimenting on prisoners in order to advance medicine, to harvesting vulnerable people\u2019s organs to help others. In fact, this logic has been used to justify eugenics and forced sterilization, and is used today to defend abortion and euthanasia.<\/p>\n

In contrast, Christianity teaches the intrinsic and equal value of\u00a0every<\/em>\u00a0human person, regardless of physical or mental abilities. This idea, rooted in the image of God, means that a man with disabilities who\u2019s never spoken a word is no less valuable than a university professor like Singer. And crimes against him are no less reprehensible.<\/p>\n

Again, ideas matter. They have consequences. And bad ideas have victims. That\u2019s why I care about this whole worldview thing, and that\u2019s why we\u2019ve got to speak out against the moral reasoning of thinkers like Singer. Because the ones who will pay the highest price often can\u2019t speak for themselves.<\/p>\n

Visit\u00a0<\/em>Breakpoint.org<\/em><\/a>\u00a0to get further information about the many great books and other resources available there and you can link up to our social media sites like\u00a0<\/em>Facebook<\/em><\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<\/em>Twitter<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

By Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Discovered by Christian Podcast Central<\/a>\u00a0and our community \u2014 copyright is owned by the publisher, not e2 media network, and audio is streamed directly from their servers.<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Resources:<\/h3>\n

Who is the Victim in the Anna Stubblefield Case?<\/a><\/p>\n