He summarises the foundation of Singer's ethics thus:
- Instead of treating all human life as equal, recognise that the worth of human life varies.
- Value depends on an ability to choose.
- Supports euthanasia both for those who wish to die and for those with no value.
- Parents can decide whether their foetus or even baby should live or die
And in response, he proposes his own 7 principles:
- The Christian perspective on the sanctity of human life provides a holistic perspective on human identity.
- The essential thing about being a human is not the ability to choose but the wondrous integration of mind, body, relationship that mysteriously reflects the image of God.
- In Singer's model, a human with brain damage becomes a non-person and of no value. But if you later recover, you become a person again. But person-hood ought not depend on such contingent, random events. You are the one person, known and loved by God, from beginning to end.
- In Singer's world, everyone seeks their own good and consequently views other people as competition. In contrast, Christians see the importance of relationsips in which the strong have a duty to care for the weak.
- For instance, in UK law, killing a brain-damaged baby is viewed the same as assassinating the Prime Minister. How could a legal framework differentiate effectively in a Singerian world?
- We naturally hold emotional stances that over-rule rational, value-based judgements. Peter Singer himself admitted that he could not bring himself to apply his own philosophy in the case of his ailing mother.
- If you held Singer's view, how could you care for those in severe physical need with real love and respect?
- Good to ask peiople: if you were given the choice of being admitted to a Christian hospital or a Singerian hospital?
- Technology has a tendency to instrumentalise human beings, e.g. using cells from aborted foetuses to assist others -- this treats the foetus as a mere instrument rather than a valued being.