Political Inequality

1) Do you think she would agree with this assessment of the nature of her 'inequality'? How would she describe the "inequality" she suffers from?

Although I've never read any other of Ms. Johnson's pieces, the tone of her writing suggests that she isn't the source of her 'inequality,' it's the people she interacts with on a daily basis. She seems do succeed at not allowing herself to become a victim of her situation while making the best out of her daily life. The cause of her 'inequality' is rooted in the way people treat her who don't understand or can't look past her disability. "I used to try to explain that in fact I enjoy my life, that it's a great sensual pleasure to zoom by power chair on these delicious muggy streets, that I have no more reason to kill myself than most people. But it gets tedious." She mentions that she gets an overwhelming negative reaction from people she encounters and how she's stereotyped when they witness the "discombobulation that comes in her wake." I think she'd feel true inequality is created by the people who react out of fear and misunderstanding and draw conclusions about her based on this fear. Because the conclusions drawn were based on fear, they're going to be thoughts associating her with inferiority to the person who is "normal."

2) Why is it so hard for Johnson to respect Singer in theory? Why is it so easy for her to respect him in practice? Why is the issue of mutual respect important when thinking about political equality?

Johnson is appalled that Singer can be so nonchalant when discussing a topic that translates into whether she should've been killed at birth. She's shocked that he can be so inhumane about human life (although Singer may consider the fetus/newborn otherwise) when he pours so much devotion into animal rights. It's easy for Johnson to be so angry at Singer for his work: she loves her life and is sad to think Singer is trying to prevent others like her from discovering a worth-while life.

In practice, she respects him because he believes his work will make a positive impact on society. It's important that Johnson understands Singer's perspective on the matter; he doesn't view fetuses/newborns as people like she does, so Singer's work has a very different meaning to him than it does to Johnson. Looking at it from Singer's view, he has respect for Johnson perhaps because she has made the best of what she was born with. From a utilitarian's perspective, although she is "worse-off", Singer recognizes she has achieved greatest possible happiness with what she has been born with (or, he can assume... she seems relatively happy).

3) What does she mean when she takes the "tragic view" of Peter Singer?

Hmm... I'm really not sure, but I'll take a stab at it.

Johnson admits that she can't help but feel some respect for the professor. She genuinely believes that he's trying to do something good in his own mind. She also feels that he's a kind and gentle man who is capable of treating others with an enormous amount of respect. On the other side of the coin, she admits that what he's promoting is shameful and wrong. Johnson finds it tragic that such an intelligent and courteous person can be so unintentionally cruel.

4) Think for a moment about the two argument about assisted suicide she discusses (Batavia and Gill) about 2/3 of the way through this essay. Which seems more compelling to you? Which seems most consistent with "equal respect" for the disabled?

I side with Gill as well. Who says that assisted suicide for "normal people" (for lack of a better term) is wrong while it's okay if the disabled decide their life is not worth living? It doesn't seem fair to either the "normal" or the disabled.

Here's an interesting predicament: Joe is a perfectly healthy young man except for the fact that he is deeply depressed and doesn't feel like life is worth living. John has a disease that paralyzed him from the neck down and guarantees he will be in a wheelchair for life, but he is perfectly happy with his daily activities and the company he keeps. You, for some unknown reason, have to euthanize one. Who would you pick?

Or maybe the better question is "who would society pick if no one knew anything about the mental state of John and Joe?" I haven't done any research to back this up, but I'd have to guess that society would pick John just by looks alone. Society, as a whole, has a preconceived notion that most disabled people are not happy with their lives or are more apt to be unhappy than "normal people." I really feel this is an unfair judgment to make and it's truly up to the person if they want to take their life or not. Either we allow all adults the option for assisted suicide or no option at all. Equal respect means equal treatment.


This essay on such a controversial topic was very compelling! I'm looking forward to talking more about this, but seeing that it's 1:30 AM and I have a cold, I should get some rest for now.
 

3) What does she mean when she takes the "tragic view" of Peter Singer?

I think she means that he himself is so un-open to the idea of learning about and experiencing the quality of life that "disabled" people have, and that he is imposing his own opinion and idea of what a "good quality of life" should be for others. It is a downfall of his, imposing his thoughts of what life should be on others and not even bothering to really listen to what people like Ms. Johnson have to say.I really liked what she had to say about everyone having something to offer, even disabled people. I cite the expamle of Stephen Hawkings.

I also had a difficult time reading and trying to wrap my mind around Singer's "notion" that infanticide of handicapped babies should be allowed. That is an absolutely horrible idea that, in my own opinion, is murder regardless of his claim that they are not yet "people" becuase they are not yet self aware. Again, this only proves his self superiority that a "normal" life is the only good one.

-Angie Vincent
 

In response to Angie:

I agree that handicapped infanticide is a horrible notion. I'm not trying to defend Singer, but if I try to pick apart where he's going with his argument, it makes sense from a utilitarian's standpoint. "The most good to the greatest number of people" is the utilitarian motto, or something to that effect. Well, the Jeremy Bentham motto, at least. This argument is definitely lacking in individual liberty, and I think this is why we are so turned off to the concept of handicapped infanticide. I prefer John Stuart Mill's rendition of utilitarianism with his "liberty principle: each person would be guaranteed the greatest possible liberty that would not interfere with the liberty of others, so that each person may maximize his or her happiness." (Wikipedia.Com: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism)

Living in a society that proclaims "freedom for all," it's only natural that we are so abhorred by the thought of such strategic infanticide. At the same time, I can sort of understand Singer's cold logic.
 

I definitely agree that disabled people have a lot to offer the world. Disabled people with a positive attitude make the world a better place. In fact, they contribute more than a lot of so-called "healthy" individuals that are negative and selfish without appreciation for their existence.
Besides, nobody is in perfect health. We all have underlying hereditary diseases which usually emerge by middle age. Singer is looking for a perfection that does not exist, and he shows no respect for individual human life. He wants to play God. I agree with Harriet's sister that Nazis behaved similar to Singer.
Although I am personally against suicide in general, putting this aside, I believe the biggest problem with making assisted suicide legal is not people choosing to do it. It is the fear that it will inevitably lead to some abuse of the law by doctors that will choose suicide for the patient. They may feel their quality of life is too poor for them to remain alive.
Also, instead of specifically offering suicide assistance to the disabled, people with truly good intentions should regularly offer assistance that will save their lives, as the author stated. If people help the disabled lead independent lives, as much as possible, they will feel happy and productive. It will largely eliminate most desires for suicide. Ultimately, I believe that Singer has the biggest disability which involves prejudice thinking and lack of human conscience.
Ann Peltier.
 

To read this article with out first realizing that a person’s religious ideals are going to enter into the discussion is to miss an aspect of people’s abhorrence of Singer’s ideas. There are many different ideas on when the fetus is a person. This article is not just an article on disabilities and whether or not disabled people can live and contribute the same as non-disabled people, but it is an article on abortion. That is the real question that gets clouded over by Johnson’s emotional reaction to Singer.
Most of us understand that being disabled does not make you a lesser person. That is not Singer’s point, thought that is the point that Johnson has taken. His point is that a parent should have the right to make decisions on whether or not their infant and late term fetus should live. Add into the discussion that Johnson is obviously one of the privileged disabled and you understand how emotion colors this article.
I am not saying that Singer is right, just that Johnson takes the article and responds to it very emotionally, which makes sense since it is an issue that is very close to her. To be honest I would have preferred to have read an article that spoke not just to a disabled person who was financially well off enough to have a non-family member care for her, but also some people who did not have the resources available to them, and who were not spokespeople for the cause. I would be curious to hear their feelings on the subject. This was not so much about the rights of the disabled, but an article that had a person meeting a man that she had long considered to be a monster, and how she felt about that interaction.
 

I think that the question of what should be done with disabled people stems largely from our grand discomfort when dealing with the disabled - not from our immense compassion. But really, isn't the story of overcoming adversity the most human, the most inspiring? Those who have overcome often become our heroes. Would we do away with these examples of bravery and ingenuity just to avoid our own discomfort? I think it would be a shame to.
 

Well said, Sean! I agree wholeheartedly. So many disabled people that have overcome their "handicaps" have made me re-evaluate myself and my gripes about my body, becoming sources of inspiration, hope, pride and heroism for me.

To respond to Lauren, yes I also agree with you that from a Utilitarian standpoint Singer makes some good points. That's my personal dilemma with this topic. I have volunteered with handicapped people in the past as well as know several personally that I interact with fairly regularly, including a dear family member. They have inspired me and given such sweet unconditional love that only serves to better those around them. But as a parent, if ever faced with a fetus or newborn with both severe mental and physical disabilities, I could understand the debate, though I doubt I could ever be capable of making that descision to end a baby's life. It is a heart wrenching and difficult topic, and I'm thankful I have not been placed in a position to make such a horrible descision. At around 5 months of pregancy, an expectant mother can get the Quad test that is a preliminary test for 4 genetic/chromosomal diseases, one of which is Downs Syndrome. If this test is positive a second test, amniocentesis, is performed. If that is positive, then the child is definitly Downs. The dilemma that scared me when I was pregnant was this...my husband would have wanted to abort a Downs child, as his best friends brother is Downs and he grew up watching the family hardships in dealing with his care and health, and my husband did not want to go through that.I cannot begrudge him is experiences with that. I however, would have enormous difficulty in aborting a 5 month-term fetus, which for me is a baby, especially if I would have had to do it alone since my husband was deployed to Iraq at the time. I just thank goodness that my quad test was negative and I was not faced with making a descision like that, becuase either myself or my husband would have been hurt beyond words with either decision. Not to mention there are varying degrees of Downs sundrome, and it's hard to tell in a fetus how severely the baby could be afflicted. You could make the descion to terminate and the baby could have been a high-functioning Downs child, with lot's of love, life and knowledge to offer, but if it was terminated, the parents, and world, would never know.
~ Angie
 

This reading had a two-fold lesson for me. I saw each of these scholars as contributing to the inequality in their own way. They both demonstrated a sense of judgment for the other and a preconcieved notion of reality. I also saw that they were both prejudious against the opposition or the other side of identity. Moreover, I found Johnson to be the more defensive of he two perhaps because of her own insecurities about her disability. Both of these highly educated people had a sort of eye opening experience and came to the realization that they were not such a threat after all to society.