It is worse to kill a human being (e.g., to painlessly poison a defective infant) rather than just let it die (e.g., by not performing an operation needed to save its life).
It is worse to kill a human being (e.g., to painlessly poison a defective infant) rather than just let it die (e.g., by not performing an operation needed to save its life).
Singer sees this as false. He sees killing and letting-die as morally equivalent. This is important in his rejection of the inviolability of human life.
Singer is often criticized for his defense of infanticide under many conditions. He once wrote: "Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all."
It is worse to kill a human being (e.g., to painlessly poison a defective infant) rather than just let it die (e.g., by not performing an operation needed to save its life).
Singer sees this as false. He sees killing and letting-die as morally equivalent. This is important in his rejection of the inviolability of human life.
Singer is often criticized for his defense of infanticide under many conditions. He once wrote: "Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all."
It is worse to kill a human being (e.g., to painlessly poison a defective infant) rather than just let it die (e.g., by not performing an operation needed to save its life).
Singer sees this as false. He sees killing and letting-die as morally equivalent. This is important in his rejection of the inviolability of human life.
Singer is often criticized for his defense of infanticide under many conditions. He once wrote: "Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all."