Reading “Unspeakable Conversations” by Harriet Johnson this weekend made me start to think about why we debate ethics, and what there is to gain from a discussion with no clear right or wrong answer. Ethics is a sea of gray. Every post in our class blog can be argued from different angles based on people’s views and assumptions, but through these posts and discussions arguments are adjusted and views are modified. The point isn’t, I don’t think, to necessarily change others’ opinions but rather to learn to clearly articulate and defend your own stance.
Johnson wrote in this article that both she and Not Dead Yet agree that they “should not legitimate Singer’s views by giving them a forum” (Johnson). I find this to be a very troubling thought. I understand what Johnson is trying to say, that both she and her organization don’t want to “make disabled lives subject to debate” (Johnson), but I still find fault with this view. If those with one opinion on a subject refuse to take part in discussion then how will we ever more forward in our knowledge and understanding? If those with opposing views are not open to discussion then they are doing themselves a disservice. Only through constantly being challenged will someone find holes in their argument and discover ways to strengthen and support what they stand for.
What struck me the most, though, in this article was the distinction Johnson makes between a person and his or her views. When Johnson initially meets Singer she is tempted to not shake his hand and thinks of him as “the Evil One” (Johnson); however, she later realizes that the views he holds, though different from hers, do not make him a bad person. Though she disagrees with Singer and many others, Johnson knows that she “can’t refuse the monster-majority basic respect and human sympathy” (Johnson). Johnson separates her feelings for the person from her feelings for his or her views, a separation which I think is necessary in order to continue ethical debates that will raise awareness of issues and help people consider all points of view.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
True - I would definitely agree that separating feelings for the person and feelings for one's beliefs are crucial in any reasoned debate. However, that does not invalidate Johnson's and NYD's desire "not [to] legitmate Singer's views by giving them a forum" (Johnson). There are definitely cases in which not bothering to acknowledge the opponents' statements is the best reaction to take. For example, during Reagan's presidency, someone falsely accused him of having an affair. His administration's advice to him was the same as NDY's: don't legitimate the accusation by addressing it. And the advice was well-given, for the accusation was so ridiculous that there was really no point in bothering to answer it. Though this might not necessarily be the case with Harriet Johnson and Peter Singer, I don't think that we should be so hasty to condemn the practice that NYD suggested.
I think that Reagan's refusal to comment on his alleged affair and Johnson and NPD's refusal to acknowledge Singer's opinions are two completely different points. Reagan, and those in the public eye, are encouraged to ignore claims like the one against him because, as you said, "the accusation was so ridiculous that there was really no point in bothering to answer it." Those in the public eye are continually bad-mouthed and slandered with claims like that, claims which are either true or not.
Singer's opinion was not an accusation directed specifically at Johnson and NYD. It was simply his view, his opinion, the conclusion he drew from ethics and philosophy. His views were neither right nor wrong, they were simply what he believed. I think that Johnson's statement about not wanting to legitimate Singer's views by coming to Princeton missed the point of Singer's invitation. I think Singer realized that the only way to advance in our views on ethics as a society is through conversations with those of different opinions. For Johnson and NPD to refuse to speak to Singer because he holds different opinions is, to me, cowardly. I know Johnson truly believed in her views and had strong support for her views, so what was she to lose by speaking with Singer? I understand that perhaps she wanted to give the impression that Singer's views were so wildly offensive and (in her opinion) wrong that they didn't even deserve her time, but I think that is completely the wrong way to approach the issue. Without conversations and questions ethical views will not grow stronger and those with differing opinions cannot learn from each other.
I actually did say that "this might not necessarily be the case with Harriet Johnson and Peter Singer." (Alexander Hwang) I just wanted to point out that the actual practice that she described is a perfectly valid one.
Now, onto your main point, I can now see the point which we're really arguing. I believe that you've misunderstood Harriet. Though I don't agree with much of what she said, I definitely empathize with her (false?) outlook in thinking that the world still holds some humanity left in it. What I mean is that Harriet, taking certain assumptions like the fact that all humans stll retain the belief that human beings are special because of who they are, sees Singer's beliefs as insultingly offensive and ludicrous. The option of not legitamating his views then is fully justified.
Besides, I would definitely disagree with you (see, now you can understand my comment in class today). I will make the stand that Peter Singer is wrong. Logical, but wrong. Beliefs aren't just subjective pieces of independent thought that float around in realm of consciousness - they are subjective interpretations of an objective world, and beliefs like these are either right or wrong. And that brings us back to the problem - I'm sure that Harriet Johnson will agree that "without conversations and questions ethical views will not grow stronger and those with differing opinions cannot learn from each other." (Mary Gamber) However, Singer's views, from Johnson's perspective, aren't "ethical views" (Mary Gamber)...they're inethical views, and thus aren't worth consideration.
Post a Comment