killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often, it is not wrong at all

KILLING A DISABLED INFANT IS NOT MORALLY EQUIVALENT TO KILLING A PERSON VERY OFTEN IT IS NOT WRONG AT ALL

2007

According to the Utilitarian Philosopher , Peter Singer 's final paragraph in his article entitled , Moral Maze , Killing a .person Very .at all (Singer , 2001 . In support to his aforementioned claim he argues that

First of all , he utilizes kids who suffer from a condition technically referred to as Severe Spina Bifida ' as an example , and reiterates that even if a surgery may be carried out later in the life of

these children , it still does not change the fact that these patients are extremely unhappy because they would have to go through exceedingly painful and uneasy life experiences (Singer , 2001 . This resulted in Singer 's belief that since a child will only live such an unhappy life then it is not worth living at all , thus , the child should not suffer further and should be allowed to die instead (Singer , 2001 . Again , for Singer , letting an infant who is physically challenged ' die is not at all similar to killing an individual and that it is not at all a wrong act because it is done to save the child from living an exceedingly unhappy life (Singer , 2001

Secondly , Singer upholds utilitarianism ' by encouraging the principle which states that an act is right if carried out to attain the greatest happiness and will benefit the greatest number as well (Will n .d . He again picked another medical condition , which is technically known as hemophilia ' to restate his conviction (Singer , 2001 . He says that killing the disabled infant will result in another newborn child with the possibility that the child will be happier , the parents would not have to worry about another child who suffers from hemophilia (Singer , 2001 . Explaining further , without the child with hemophilia , the parents will not have to attend to painful bleedings which are difficult to clot if not impossible (Singer , 2001 When Singer says that greatest happiness , he means , the children will be attended to equally and adequately because there is no other child with hemophilia to share their parents ' time with and at the same time , the parents will also be happy because they will not have to think endlessly about their sick child (Singer , 2001 . In addition to that , when Singer says greatest number , he apparently refers to the unaffected normal children , the hemophiliac who no longer has to live a painful life , as well as , the parents who never have to worry (Singer , 2001 . Again , for Singer , letting an infant who is physically challenged ' die is not at all similar to killing an individual and that it is not at all a wrong act because it is done with the intention to attain the greatest happiness and to benefit the greatest number (Singer , 2001

Third , Singer believes that killing an infant who 's physically challenged ' is not killing an individual and that it is not an act which can be labeled as wrong...