Priorities in BioEthics: (Disabled baby) v. (Healthy pig) When Princeton University hired Peter Singer as Professor in BioEthics at its Center for Human Values, a controversy arose. Singer, an Australian. Is best known from his 1970 groundbreaking book, Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals, which questions society's tendency to put human needs above those of members of other species. But the idea that caused the controversy was his argument for killing "severely disabled children". He is quoted as saying, "killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person"; adding that the life of a newborn baby is "less value than the life of a dog, a pig, or a chimpanzee". First, please answer the questions and then respond to at least two of your classmate's response. (not all of their response but the ones that you think are interesting) Questions Was there in your judgment anything morally objectionable in Princeton's hiring of Singer in this position? Do you agree with his statement and his belief about the value of a "newborn disabled child" v. a healthy animal in our society? Why or why not? What about looking at it from a contribution aspect or can Utilitarian Ethics (Greater good) be applied? 3. What if this is just Singer's personal belief and he promises not to discuss or advocate this view in his position at the Center. Would you hire him? 4. Should our society weigh the value of a human to the value of an animal? Why or Why not? (Chapter 6) 5. Is he morally irresponsible as an ethical person to think this way? 6. Should hiring him be considered having "diversity" in the workplace?