哲学者エヴァ・キティ氏、１１月に来日(2010/10/12)
Eva KittayとMichael Berube：障害のある子どもを持つ学者からのSigner批判(2010/10/13)
Wilson氏のポストへのコメントでの議論の論点は、
当時の私の理解では明らかに不十分ですが、一応こちらのエントリーに。
このやりとりから、Dick Sobsey氏のコメントを以下に。(ゴシックは特に個人的「そうだ！」部分)
文字数の関係で、後半部分は次のエントリーに分かれます。
読みづらくて、申し訳ありません。
December 19, 2008 at 10:50 am
I agree that rights are socially constructed and not fundamental to nature, but they are no more socially constructed than moral status.
Maybe it would be better to say nonpersons can have no personal interests. Than no interests. Some people might say that my car, which I definitely consider a nonperson, has an interest in having its oil changed, so in that sense nonpersons can be said to have interests, but I wouldn’t say it wants its oil changed.
I know that Singer would prefer to talk about moral status than rights, but the two are inseparable. Part of the problem in this issue is that Singer uses profound mental retardation as a kind of philosophical notion rather than a clear notion of what it actually is. I want to assure you, him and everyone else that lots of people with profound mental retardation do have plans and desires. They may not be plans to design a cathedral or plans to swindle billions of dollars from investors, they may only be plans for a warm bath, or eating a piece of cake. But maybe these plans are just as important to them. The notion that these things aren’t important is like saying it is okay to rob poor people because they don’t have much to lose.
Singer’s imprecision in describing people with disabilities seems to be uniformly in the direction of underestimating their lives. In the clip used here, for example, he informs people that Ashley X cannot swallow any food, but the picture on her parents website show her eating watermelon and strawberries. For Singer, not having his facts straight about whether Ashley could swallow or whether people with profound intellectual disabilities have plans is unimportant because he is only using them as abstract philosophical devices. When shown why his reasoning may not apply to one case, he just imagines another one and says, no matter where the line is drawn it will have to be drawn someplace. The philosophical concepts are more important than the individuals. For me, I know a lot about people with severe and profound disabilities, but very little about philosophy. So, we are coming from very different places.
I disagree with the notion that abortion and weighing the mother’s rights or interest against that of the fetus is relevant here. I agree that this is a situation where the rights and interests of one may have to be given priority over another. There are many other situations where these kinds of choices need to be made and I have no problem with recognizing that reality. My concern is that trying to resolve the issue by pretending that someone is a nonperson without moral status is a dishonest rationalization. If Singer wants to argue that children with profound mental retardation should be deprived of life or subjected to treatments because we don’t have the resources to meet their needs or parents have a right to do other stuff besides take care of their kids, we can have that argument… but it is a totally different argument.
知的障害のある人たちにも、見ようともしないキミらには分からん形かもしれないが、
ちゃんと計画や望みというものがあり、
それはキミや私の計画や望みとは違うかもしれないけれど、
本人にとっては大切な計画であり望みなのだよ。
そんな人の計画や望みなど、どうせなんてことないと切って捨てるのは、
どうせ失うものが少ない人からは全部盗んでいったって構わないと言うようなものだ。
そのことが理解できないのも、Ashleyのありのままの姿が見えないのも、
キミたちが哲学の概念としての障害の方を現実の障害者よりも重要視しているからなのだよ。
（次のエントリーに続く）