Critical Thinking Essay

Submitted By khoadinh06
Words: 779
Pages: 4

Disability not worth to be killed Peter Singer is the most influential philosopher. He does not consider disabled people as person. He also wants to legalize and be lawful the killing of disabled babies. He thinks that killing of disabled people might put them out of their misery, and no one counts killing of disabled people is murder. In other hand, Harriet McBryde Johnson was a disabled person, a lawyer, and a disability right activist. In 2002, Johnson debated Singer, challenging his belief that parents ought to be able to kill their disabled children. A year later, Johnson published "Unspeakable Conversations,” that narrated her debate with Singer. Both of them made many arguments for their viewpoint. However, Johnson made stronger arguments due to her disabled experiences. She argues effectively against Singer’s philosophy advocating the killing of children with disabilities. She presented clear evidences and reasons, for disabled people are not worth to be killed. The crux of Johnson’s arguments against Singer is that “the presence or absence of disability does not predict quality of life.” She admits that disabled people have some limit, and can not be measured on the same scale with non-disabled people. But she negatives disability makes a person “worse off.” She said, “Are we ‘worse off’? I don't think so. Not in any meaningful sense. There are too many variables. For those of us with congenital conditions, disability shapes all we are. Those disabled later in life adapt. We take constraints that no one would choose and build rich and satisfying lives within them.” In addition, it makes sure there is nothing that all non-disability will have a good life. Many of non-disability are addict, homeless, and robber, and they do not have a good life. So, the “quality of life” does not depend on presence or absence of disability, but it depends on courage, patience, determination, and how people face with their situation. One more thing, Johnson argues that disability also has happiness life. She makes Singer’s argument to become quite wrong; because Singer thinks that disability just has miserable life, and disabled people might be put out of their misery. In fact, everybody has different ways to enjoy their life, and disable people are not exception for their own ways. Johnson said, “I enjoy my life, that it's a great sensual pleasure to zoom by power chair on these delicious muggy streets,” or “We enjoy pleasures other people enjoy, and pleasures peculiarly our own. We have something the world needs.” When Singer presents a situation “imagine a disabled child on the beach, watching the other children play”, Johnson responds, “as a little girl playing on the beach,” she was annoyed for some people felling sorry for her, “in fact, I had fun playing on the beach, without the need of standing, walking or running,” she said. Johnson’s success is also evidence that against Singer’s philosophy. Even though, Johnson is disability, she earned a B.S. in history, a Master’s in Public Administration, and a J.D. law degree. According to…