Published by De Gruyter Oldenbourg

Volume 12 Issue 2

Issue of Analyse & Kritik

Contents
Journal Overview

Publicly Available May 12, 2016

Zwischen Leben entscheiden: Eine Verteidigung

Peter Singer, Helga Kuhse

Page range: 119-130

More Download PDF

Abstract

We examine the view that all human life is of equal worth or sanctity. We find that this view is a legacy of the Judeo- Christian tradition, and cannot be justified in non - religious terms. We therefore argue that it should be rejected, and that we should openly acknowledge that some Jives are of less worth than others. We then consider a common objection: that this will lead us down a slippery slope to Nazi- style atrocities. We give our reasons for finding this objection unpersuasive. We explain why no-one has any grounds for feeling threatened by our proposal. Finally we discuss who should make the decision involved in selecting whether a person should come into existence, and how that decision should be carried out.

Publicly Available May 12, 2016

Peter Singer und die Pädagogik für Behinderte

per Beginn der ‚Singer-Affäre‘

Christoph Anstötz

Page range: 131-148

More Download PDF

Abstract

The article gives an account of the prelude to an extensive ethical debate in Germany which was sparked off by an invitation to the Australian philosopher Peter Singer to speak at the University of Dortmund. He was to lecture about the right to life of severely handicapped new-born babies. But among special educators this theme provoked violent protests throughout the country; organisations of the disabled and various other groups forced the cancellation of the lecture and discussion with Peter Singer. The kind of dispute which follows in special education is not to be judged without consideration of the methodological background of this young discipline. The events around the ‘Singer affair’ have shown severe methodological deficits, which may or rather must be cured in future.

Publicly Available May 12, 2016

Philosophie und Öffentlichkeit

Anmerkungen zur Euthanasiedebatte

Ursula Wolf

Page range: 149-161

More Download PDF

Abstract

This paper attempts to analyse and criticize the arguments and motives of those who reject any discussion of active euthanasia. A distinction is drawn between freedom of discussion in academic and in public con texts. Academic discussion demands unrestricted freedom, whereas in public debates the feelings of the groups concerned should be considered. The author argues that these restrictions are not serious enough to justify suppressing the debate. Problems of euthanasia are too vital to be left to the experts without public control.

Publicly Available May 12, 2016

Schwierigkeiten der moralischen Aufklärung

Rainer Hegselmann

Page range: 162-173

More Download PDF

Abstract

The article argues that a central part of moral integrity under the condition of moral enlightenment consists in virtues concerning thinking and discussing about moral problems.

Publicly Available May 12, 2016

Ein guter Philosoph ist stets darauf bedacht, ob nicht auch ein anderer Böses macht

Hartmut Kliemt

Page range: 174-189

More Download PDF

Abstract

The fact that Peter Singer was prevented from lecturing in Germany as well as the fact that the discussion of his book ‘Practical Ethics’ was rendered impossible raises important questions about freedom. Surprisingly some philosophers have joined the political factions which strive to suppress free discussion. In this quite polemical article some of their views are rejected. The only way to weed out error is free discussion.

Publicly Available May 12, 2016

Das Töten von Tieren und von Föten

Wolfgang Lenzen

Page range: 190-204

More Download PDF

Abstract

Singer’s ‘Practical Ethics’ is based on a form of utilitarianism which takes into account the interests of a living being if and only if it displays a minimum of rationality and (self-)consciousness. Accordingly aborting a human fetus in an early stage of development is held to be morally acceptable, whereas killing chicken, pigs, and cattle for mere culinary pleasure is not. Singer's view on abortion are refuted because they only consider the actual properties of the fetus but ignore the quality of its future life . In general the ‘principle of replaceability’ must be rejected. And although making animais suffer certainly is immoral, mere (painless) killing does not necessarily do so great a harm to them that we have to become vegetarians.

Publicly Available May 12, 2016

Utilitaristische Ethik und Tötungsverbot

Zu Peter Singers ‚Praktische Ethik‘

Dieter Birnbacher

Page range: 205-218

More Download PDF

Abstract

One of the standard criticisms of classical utilitarian is that it is unable to provide an adequate ethical foundation for the wrongness of killing. It is reasoned that the five arguments against killing available to the classical utilitarian are indeed sufficient to provide such a foundation and that recourse to preference utilitarianism is neither called for nor helpful since it generates a number of problems of its own. On this basis, Singer’s discussion of selective abortion and the selective euthanasia of newborns is criticized from within utilitarianism for not giving sufficient weight to direct and indirect social side-effects, especially if ‘external’ criteria are introduced into the valuation of human life.

Publicly Available May 12, 2016

Singer über Rechte, Recht auf Leben und Euthanasie

Jean-Claude Wolf

Page range: 219-225

More Download PDF

Abstract

Rights are not redundant elements of a plausible utilitarian theory and the right to life is an inseparable companion of the rights to nourishment and to medical care. The deeper reason for this thesis is the interdependence of values concerning vitality. In this perspective it is inconsistent to say that the (normal) newborn is unable to have a right to life, but has a right to be fed. The hidden premise of Singer’s rebuttal of involuntary euthanasia is a theory of rights as vetoes against imposed benefits. Without openly subscribing to such a theory there is no answer to ‘logical slippery slope’ arguments and no protection against dangerous ‘quality of life’ considerations as a basis of decisions over life and death.

Publicly Available May 12, 2016

Kindstötung und das Lebensrecht von Personen

Norbert Hoerster

Page range: 226-244

More Download PDF

Abstract

According to the view of Peter Singer, only persons deserve a right to life. As a consequence, a human being can claim such a right only at a certain point of its postnatal development and there is no essential moral difference between infanticide and abortion. Against this view, it is argued that - even on the basis of personhood as the fundamental criterion - there are convincing pragmatical reasons for attributing a right to life in social practice at the point of birth. It is also shown how this position can be combined with a morally satisfactory position on the important problem of the treatment of infants who are severely handicapped.

Publicly Available May 12, 2016

The ‘Singer-Affair’ and Practical Ethics: A Response

Peter Singer

Page range: 245-264

More Download PDF

Abstract

This response to the articles in this issue of ‘Analyse & Kritik’ begins with some general remarks on the ‘Singer-Affair’ in which I suggest that while the rational discussion of the ethical issue of euthanasia poses no threat of a return to Nazism, there is a real danger in the creation of a climate in which people are ready to use force to suppress ideas with which they disagree. I then state and criticise two popular theses about t he wrongness of killing: that there is a crucial moral distinction between an act and an omission, and that all human beings possess an intrinsic right to life that no nonhuman beings have. This serves as a background to the section that follows, in which I take up the detailed criticisms of my views made by Professors Lenzen, Birnbacher, J.C. Wolf and Hoerster.

About this journal

ANALYSE & KRITIK

is devoted to the fundamental issues of empirical and normative social theory
is directed at social scientists and social philosophers who combine commitment to political and moral enlightenment with argumentative rigour and conceptual clarity
develops social theorizing in connection with analytical philosophy and philosophy of science
promotes the dialogue between Anglo-American and Continental traditions in the social sciences and ethics
publishes articles in English