Letter: `Sanctity' of life
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Paul Vallely may find Peter Singer's rejection of the sanctity of life disturbing, but it is Professor Singer's views that stand up to closer scrutiny ("The man who would kill disabled babies", 14 May).
Belief that life is in itself sacred would demand an equal respect for all life, be it vegetable, insect or animal. Given that most of us would find that view intolerable, the next logical step is to claim that there is something about human, or advanced animal, life which gives it its sanctity. This cannot be the mere fact of it being human. It is rather that human life has certain features, such as sentience and capacity for pleasure and pain which make it valuable. But then, if a human life lacks these features, it lacks what gives it its value.
The notion that human life is of itself sacred is no more than an honourable but ill-founded fiction.
Dr JULIAN BAGGINI
Editor, The Philosophers' Magazine
London N4
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments