Princeton University's Bioethics Professor Peter Singer, who garnered national media attention this summer for justifying euthanasia for severely disabled infants, stirred controversy from the moment he was hired last year.
In his first public forum since arriving at the University this fall, Singer squared off last night against Adrienne Asch, a blind professor from Wellesley College.
Singer's presence at Princeton has prompted campus-wide debate and discussion this year, according to Princeton senior Dan Powell, a bioethics major who helped organize last night's event sponsored by the Bioethics Forum of Princeton University.
Powell said the views Asch expressed last night were in sharp contrast to Singer's. Asch is a reproductive ethicist, and spoke strongly for the rights of disabled people.
Asch disputed the factual basis for Singer's beliefs, arguing that the lives of disabled people were on the whole more fulfilling than Singer had suggested, according to Powell.
Singer, on the other hand has a modern interpretation of the popular philosophical view called utilitarianism, according to Dartmouth philosophy professor Bernard Gert.
"The goal is to maximize the value of pleasure over pain. Period. That's the only thing that's significant," Gert said.
This ideology leads Singer to believe strongly in animal rights, giving to charity and vegetarianism, as well as his more controversial standpoint on euthanasia.
"It was somewhat emotional," Powell said. "It was a really thoughtful discussion."
When classes began at Princeton three weeks ago, hundreds of protestors from Not Dead Yet, an Illinois-based group that works to achieve rights for handicapped people, chained themselves to the fence of Nassau Hall, an administration building, to express their disapproval of Singer.
According to The New York Times, most of the protesters were in motorized wheelchairs and locked themselves to the building itself or linked their chairs together with handcuffs during the protest.
An editor of The Daily Princetonian told The Dartmouth that forum would allow students to learn about Singer's belief first hand, instead of debating whether Singer should have been hired in the first place.
"I don't want to the debate to boil down to personal attacks," said Maria Kubat, a senior at Princeton who said she opposes many of Singer's views.
According to Kubat, now that Singer has begun teaching, the question of whether he should be on campus is a moot point.
She said she thinks having Singer on campus may even be valuable because of the debates that have been raised on campus since the University appointed Singer may be reason enough for him to be there.
However, she said it is not right for Singer's views as the first bioethics professor at Princeton to be the only standpoint expressed at the University.
"I think ideas do have consequences," she said. "Someone arbitrarily judging the life of another individual is dangerous territory."
She said it is important to debate the consequences of views like Singer's, and not just see them on an academic plane.
Despite the protests this year, there has been no administration-sponsored action to ask Singer to temper his views or suggest that he leave the University.
