The Euthanasia Debate: Peter Singer vs. Archbishop Fisher
Marketed simply as “The Euthanasia Debate: Singer vs. Fisher” the event at the Sydney Town Hall last week was described by one journalist as an event where: “arguments flew in both directions but rarely met”. It was a respectful exchange from two well-credentialed people whose views were never really expected to coalesce upon common ground.
Fisher’s was a straightforward approach. In his opening remarks he drew moral distinctions between killing in response to suffering and actively supporting and engaging in answering the needs of the sufferer until death summarizing that the latter “demands more from us” endorsing, as it does, the intrinsic value of human life. He went on from that point to discuss the effect upon humanity of accepting the view that some lives would be worth less than others.
Singer’s approach, by contrast, was anything but straightforward. He began by framing the debate on his own terms. For some, his assertion that he accepted a definition of “voluntary euthanasia” as put by Archbishop Fisher in a debate some years ago will have seemed conciliatory, perhaps even charitable. It was, in reality, a sleight of hand.
Read the article “The Euthanasia Debate: Peter Singer vs. Archbishop Fisher” on mercatornet.com.