“If the sanctity of life is rejected, then many of Peter Singer’s ideas become persuasive. For instance if a baby is born badly disabled and the parents do not want it then why not, Singer argues, simply kill it and have another one? We would do this with a dog or a cat and since humans are simply animals surely the happiness and well-being of everyone would be improved if the disabled baby was killed and the couple had a new, healthy child.”
Peter Singer argues that 1/ either handicapped human beings or people with serious deficiencies has no right to live, and he justifies his opinion by saying that “those are lives not worth of living”. On the other hand, he argues that 2/ the death of those handicapped people is “useful” as society would spare some money in health care.
Peter Singer’s doctrine can be debunked in two points, as follows:
1/ Peter Singer incurs in a Naturalistic Fallacy (please check the British philosopher G. E. Moore) as he draws moral conclusions from facts.
2/ Peter Singer presupposes that there is a general consensus about the value and the convenient costs of a human life – but there is not such a consensus.