Peter Singer Argument On Disabled People

1185 Words5 Pages
According to Peter Singer, disabled individuals can not enjoy the same level of well-being as their nondisabled counterparts. In this paper, I will disagree with the notion presented by Peter Singer and prove that disabled people do in fact attain the same level of wellbeing. Firstly, by drawing on Dan Moller’s argument that people have the ability to adapt their circumstances and secondly, draw on Jean Kazez and Harriet Mcbryde Johnson's arguments which refute peter singer's notion.
Peter Singer, claims that “people with very severe disabilities are likely to live lives that are not as good” this blanket statement has raised a lot of questions, whereby, Singer defends his argument by claiming that people with disabilities do not have the same prospects as those born without disabilities. Singer’s claim is based on his assumption that disabled people are not able to achieve a decent level of wellbeing. He argues that people innately believe that disabled individuals are not capable of achieving a normal level of wellbeing due to, his idea, that mothers would not knowingly harm (disable) their children.
…show more content…
However, his argument does not address the children's well being, but solely discusses the parent's’ view of their child's disability. This therefore does not justify his argument that disabled people do infact have a lesser level of wellbeing. Singer sympathy towards parents of disabled children distracts from the imperative argument which is the wellbeing of the disabled child (individual), and if he/she has the same ability to attain a somewhat ‘normal’ level of
Get Access