In Response To Singer

To the Editor:

I believe that Dr. Peter Singer is mistaken when he writes, "[Rabbi] Tendler doesn’t bother to react to my actual argument." Even a casual reading of R’ Tendler’s column demonstrates that he is strongly reacting to the absence of respect for the sanctity of human life in Singer’s moral system.

According to Singer, thwarting "future desires" is the only "morally relevant" factor that gives us a reason for thinking it worse to kill typical humans than other species. In his article, he provides no moral basis for the assertion that future plans are more relevant than pain, suffering, or the loss of family connections, except that certain humans have this ability to plan for the future while other species lack this ability.

If that is the only basis for our moral distinction, then there are other abilities humanity as a whole enjoys which other species lack. We could arbitrarily argue that only humans have the capacity for speech and therefore assert that the moral reason killing a human is worse than killing an animal lies in the fact that we are depriving the human of the power to speak. Singer could still justify his arguments for infanticide since it is well established that within 28 days of birth a baby has no power of speech and he could also add a new category of humans to his list of potential medical experiment subjects: deaf-mutes.

Or, if speech doesn’t satisfy his search for a distinction between humans and other species, we could use the ability to read. This way, if a person can’t read the form designating a procedure as dangerous or experimental, he becomes the perfect "moral" subject.

The point of R’ Tendler’s column, amply demonstrated by Singer’s response, is that absent a Supreme Moral Authority, our notions of morality become arbitrary and subjective-determined only by factors we consider relevant at the time. If we consider pain a relevant factor then killing an animal becomes the moral equivalent of killing a human.

By dismissing religion as a "refuge," it is Singer who refuses to address the arguments and concerns of R’ Tendler and the millions of Americans who believe in a G-d that created man in His image, separate from animals.

As R’ Tendler implores in his column, we who believe in these religious values must transmit them and their moral Source to both our generation and the next.