Reducing suffering

Philosopher Peter Singer supports the view of "infanticide," but he argues for the rights of animals. He believes that parents should be able to make the choice of whether a disabled child should live, or whether the child should be humanely killed. He bases his claims on some other philosophers such as John Locke, when Singer states that a person is a rational substance, and a disabled baby without a brain, who cannot smile, communicate, or feel anything, is not a person. To claim that the baby is still a human being and is entitled to protection is to be prejudice against other species. A chimpanzee might have more rational thought than the disabled baby, but if being born to human parent entitles it to more rights, then we are just favoring our own species.

Singer's conclusions follow a strong logical sense, and a lot of his ideas are based on reducing the suffering. In the case of animals rights, by limiting the amount of experimentations, or simply avoid eating meat, can reduce their sufferings. In the case of euthanasia of disabled children, one can reduce the suffering of both the family, or to the baby that might have to live through a painful life.

However, should we always let these logical conclusions guide us? We try hard to reduce the sufferings, of both animals and ourselves. However, there will always be suffering in life, and perhaps this is a part of nature that we should not change. Hundreds of years ago, when we do not have the medical knowledge of the disability, we do not interfere with the child's life with euthanasia. Now that we do know about these disabilities, do we have the rights to interfere, and do we have the obligation to interfere?

Singer brought up another way to reduce suffering. In the developing countries, there are many that are starving, or in need of some other necessities. If an average person gives away just a tiny portion of what they own, they can reduce suffering to many people. However, I don’t think we are obligated to help. It's a nice gesture to provide need to the developing countries, and many people do give to charities. By providing the aid, we are affecting the natural order of things, and if nature creates a world that has suffering, then we do not have a moral obligation to remove it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMZvIZEO1E0