DebateLabKIT/deepa2-corpus · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 1.71k
in it with such fanaticism that they are prepared to use
force to suppress any attempt to discuss it.
If this is the case with attempts to discuss practices like genetic
counseling and prenatal diagnosis, which are today very widely
accepted in most developed countries, it is easy to imagine that
the shadow of Nazism prevents any rational discussion of anything
that relates to euthanasia. It avails little to point out that
what the Nazis called 'euthanasia' had nothing to do with compassion
or concern for those who were killed, but was simply
the murder of people considered unworthy of living from the
racist viewpoint of the German Valko Such distinctions are altogether
too subtle for those who are convinced that they alone
know what will prevent a revival of Nazi-like barbarism.
Can anything be done? In May this year, in Zurich, I had one
of the most unpleasant experiences yet in this unhappy story;
but it gave, at the same time, a glimmer of hope that there may
be a remedy.
I was invited by the Zoological Institute of the University of
Zurich to give a lecture on 'Animal Rights'. On the following
day, the philosophy department had organized a colloquium
for twenty-five invited philosophers, theologians, special educationalists,
zoologists, and other academics to discuss the implications
for both humans and animals of an ethic that would
reject the view that the boundary of our species marks a moral
boundary of great intrinsic significance, and holds that nonhuman
animals have no rights.
The lecture on animal rights did not take place. Before it
began, a group of disabled people in wheelchairs, who had been
21 R. M. Hare makes a similar point in a letter published in Die Zeit. August
11, 1989.
356
Appendix
admitted to the flat area at the front of the lecture theater, staged
a brief protest in which they said that, while it was all the same
to them whether or not I lectured on the topic of animal rights,
they objected to the fact that the University of Zurich had invited
such a notorious advocate of euthanasia to discuss ethical issues
that also concerned the disabled. At the end of this protest,
when I rose to speak, a section of the audience - perhaps a
quarter or a third - began to chant: "Singer raus! Singer raus!"
As I heard this chanted, in German, by people so lacking in
respect for the tradition of reasoned debate that they were unwilling
even to allow me to make a response to what had just
been said about me, I had an overwhelming feeling that this
was what it must have been like to attempt to reason against
the rising tide of Nazism in the declining days of the Weimar
Republic. The difference was that the chant would have been,
not 'Singer raus', but 'Juden raus'. An overhead projector was
still functioning, and I began to write on it, to point out this
parallel that I was feeling so strongly. At that point one of the
protesters came up behind me and tore my glasses from my
face, throwing them on the floor and breaking them.
My host wisely decided to abandon the lecture; there was
nothing else that could be done. But from this distressing affair
came one good sign; it was clear that the disabled people who
had made the initial protest were distressed with what had
happened afterward. Several said that they had not intended
that the lecture should be disrupted; they had, in fact, prepared
questions to ask during the discussion period that would have
followed the lecture. Even while the chanting was going on,
some attempted to begin a discussion with me; at which point
some of the able-bodied demonstrators (presumably well aware
of the way in which in Saarbriicken a discussion had broken
through the initial hostility toward me) urgently remonstrated
with them not to talk to me. The disabled, however, clearly had
no power to do anything about the chanting.
As already noted, my views in no way threaten anyone who
357
Appendix
is, or ever has been, even minimally aware of the fact that he
or she has a possible future life that could be threatened. But
there are some who have a political interest in preventing this
elementary fact from becoming known. These people are now
playing on the anxieties of the disabled in order to use them as
a political front for different purposes. In Zurich, for instance,
prominent among the nondisabled people chanting 'Singer raus'
were the Autonomen, or 'Autonomists', a group that affects an
anarchist, style but disdains any interest in anarchist theory. For
these nondisabled political groups, preventing Singer from
speaking, no matter what the topic, has become an end in itself,
a way of rallying the faithful and striking at the entire system
in which rational debate takes place. Disabled people have nothing
to gain, and much to lose, by allowing themselves to be
used by such nihilistic groups. If they can be brought to see that
their interests are better served by an open discussion with those
whose views they oppose, it may be possible to begin a process
in which both bioethicists and the disabled address the proper
concerns of the other side, and move to a dialogue that is constructive
rather than destructive.
Such a dialogue would be only a beginning. To heal the damage
done to bioethics and applied ethics in Germany will take much
longer. There is a real danger that the atmosphere of intimidation
and intolerance which has spread from the issue of euthanasia
to all of bioethics, and with the events in Hamburg, to
applied ethics in general, will continue to broaden. It is essential
that the minority that is actively opposing the free discussion
of academic ideas be isolated. Here too, what happened in Zurich
may serve as an example for other German-speaking countries
to follow. In sharp contrast to the silence of the rector of
the University of Dortmund, or the fatuous claim that "We

in it with such fanaticism that they are prepared to use

force to suppress any attempt to discuss it.

If this is the case with attempts to discuss practices like genetic

counseling and prenatal diagnosis, which are today very widely

accepted in most developed countries, it is easy to imagine that

the shadow of Nazism prevents any rational discussion of anything

that relates to euthanasia. It avails little to point out that

what the Nazis called 'euthanasia' had nothing to do with compassion

or concern for those who were killed, but was simply

the murder of people considered unworthy of living from the

racist viewpoint of the German Valko Such distinctions are altogether

too subtle for those who are convinced that they alone

know what will prevent a revival of Nazi-like barbarism.

Can anything be done? In May this year, in Zurich, I had one

of the most unpleasant experiences yet in this unhappy story;

but it gave, at the same time, a glimmer of hope that there may

be a remedy.

I was invited by the Zoological Institute of the University of

Zurich to give a lecture on 'Animal Rights'. On the following

day, the philosophy department had organized a colloquium

for twenty-five invited philosophers, theologians, special educationalists,

zoologists, and other academics to discuss the implications

for both humans and animals of an ethic that would

reject the view that the boundary of our species marks a moral

boundary of great intrinsic significance, and holds that nonhuman

animals have no rights.

The lecture on animal rights did not take place. Before it

began, a group of disabled people in wheelchairs, who had been

21 R. M. Hare makes a similar point in a letter published in Die Zeit. August

11, 1989.

356

Appendix

admitted to the flat area at the front of the lecture theater, staged

a brief protest in which they said that, while it was all the same

to them whether or not I lectured on the topic of animal rights,

they objected to the fact that the University of Zurich had invited

such a notorious advocate of euthanasia to discuss ethical issues

that also concerned the disabled. At the end of this protest,

when I rose to speak, a section of the audience - perhaps a

quarter or a third - began to chant: "Singer raus! Singer raus!"

As I heard this chanted, in German, by people so lacking in

respect for the tradition of reasoned debate that they were unwilling

even to allow me to make a response to what had just

been said about me, I had an overwhelming feeling that this

was what it must have been like to attempt to reason against

the rising tide of Nazism in the declining days of the Weimar

Republic. The difference was that the chant would have been,

not 'Singer raus', but 'Juden raus'. An overhead projector was

still functioning, and I began to write on it, to point out this

parallel that I was feeling so strongly. At that point one of the

protesters came up behind me and tore my glasses from my

face, throwing them on the floor and breaking them.

My host wisely decided to abandon the lecture; there was

nothing else that could be done. But from this distressing affair

came one good sign; it was clear that the disabled people who

had made the initial protest were distressed with what had

happened afterward. Several said that they had not intended

that the lecture should be disrupted; they had, in fact, prepared

questions to ask during the discussion period that would have

followed the lecture. Even while the chanting was going on,

some attempted to begin a discussion with me; at which point

some of the able-bodied demonstrators (presumably well aware

of the way in which in Saarbriicken a discussion had broken

through the initial hostility toward me) urgently remonstrated

with them not to talk to me. The disabled, however, clearly had

no power to do anything about the chanting.

As already noted, my views in no way threaten anyone who

357

Appendix

is, or ever has been, even minimally aware of the fact that he

or she has a possible future life that could be threatened. But

there are some who have a political interest in preventing this

elementary fact from becoming known. These people are now

playing on the anxieties of the disabled in order to use them as

a political front for different purposes. In Zurich, for instance,

prominent among the nondisabled people chanting 'Singer raus'

were the Autonomen, or 'Autonomists', a group that affects an

anarchist, style but disdains any interest in anarchist theory. For

these nondisabled political groups, preventing Singer from

speaking, no matter what the topic, has become an end in itself,

a way of rallying the faithful and striking at the entire system

in which rational debate takes place. Disabled people have nothing

to gain, and much to lose, by allowing themselves to be

used by such nihilistic groups. If they can be brought to see that

their interests are better served by an open discussion with those

whose views they oppose, it may be possible to begin a process

in which both bioethicists and the disabled address the proper

concerns of the other side, and move to a dialogue that is constructive

rather than destructive.

Such a dialogue would be only a beginning. To heal the damage

done to bioethics and applied ethics in Germany will take much

longer. There is a real danger that the atmosphere of intimidation

and intolerance which has spread from the issue of euthanasia

to all of bioethics, and with the events in Hamburg, to

applied ethics in general, will continue to broaden. It is essential

that the minority that is actively opposing the free discussion

of academic ideas be isolated. Here too, what happened in Zurich

may serve as an example for other German-speaking countries

to follow. In sharp contrast to the silence of the rector of

the University of Dortmund, or the fatuous claim that "We