Ethicist Singer finds fault with Bush

With an Australian-style greeting of “G’day,
mate!” Geoffrey Garrett, vice provost of the UCLA
International Institute, introduced noted ethicist Peter Singer
Thursday afternoon in the Ackerman Second Floor Lounge.

Singer, the current DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton,
discussed several issues from his new book, “The President of
Good & Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush.”

In the talk, Singer outlined what he referred to as
“ethical contradictions” in President Bush’s
policies, including the sanctity of life, global warming and the
war in Iraq.

Though his new book deviates from his usual work in bioethics,
Singer explained he was inspired to write it when Bush banned
federal funding for stem cell research in August 2001.

“I don’t deny that embryos are human, and I
don’t deny that they’re living, but I don’t think
it makes them, (in Bush’s words) “˜something precious to
be protected,'” Singer said.

Though Bush is adamant about protecting the sanctity of life,
his reinstatement of capital punishment and the civilian death toll
in Iraq conflict with this stance, Singer explained.

“It seems that the president values the lives of embryos
more than the lives of these Iraqi civilians,” Singer
said.

He also discussed Bush’s global warming policies, noting
Bush’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol because it does not
include China and India.

“By not signing on, we are unfairly passing on problems to
other countries in order to maintain our own living
standards,” Singer said.

Singer said Bush has a “simplistic” moral view and
does not admit his wrongs.

“I think he has a … very literalist reading of what
(being) an ethicist requires; it requires a lot more nuance, not
just the black-and-white terms of “˜good’ and
“˜evil,'” Singer said.

Bush’s predisposition to the words “˜good’ and
“˜evil’ has been quite evident in numerous speeches
concerning the war on Iraq.

According to Singer, preemptive force is a country’s right
only when an attack is imminent.

“I have no quarrel with the view that Iraq is better off
without Saddam. (But) for one country to attack an independent
nation because it doesn’t like its leader ““ I
don’t think that’s a recipe for a peaceful
world,” Singer said.

However, Singer did not denounce Bush entirely, crediting him
with having done more than the Clinton administration for AIDS
research and foreign aid.

Singer’s audience was comprised of approximately 60
people. Although not all of them agreed with his points, many at
least found his presentation to be thought-provoking.

“I was actually happy to see opposition raised because I
could see both sides of the argument. … To see Bush criticized in
an ethical light … I thought that was very refreshing,”
said Andy Johnson, a third-year history student.