Musings from Peter Singer on the death penalty

Bioethicist Peter Singer is on the celebrity philosopher circuit nowadays. He is a syndicated columnist and, along with philosophers like Julian Savulescu and Bernard-Henri Lévy, is on Twitter. He often seems to speak forums organised by universities and think tanks. Recently he addressed a gathering organised by the Carnegie Council.

Somewhat surprisingly, on utilitarian grounds he defended the possibility of imposing the death penalty. At this moment, there exists no situation in which it is needed, even for those convicted of genocide. Theoretically, however, there is nothing wrong with it:

QUESTION: Is there any possible scenario that you could imagine sanctioning the death penalty?

PETER SINGER: Is there any possible scenario where I could imagine? Look, if somebody came up with convincing evidence that the death penalty was a uniquely effective deterrent—let's say that for every murderer who was executed, there would be ten fewer murders—then, as a utilitarian, I would have to accept the death penalty. In fact, if the evidence was clear-cut enough and sound enough, even if it was only for every person executed, there were two fewer murderers or one and a half fewer murderers, I guess I would accept it.

comments powered by Disqus

 Search BioEdge

 Subscribe to BioEdge newsletter
rss Subscribe to BioEdge RSS feed

 Recent Posts
New Mexico legalises assisted suicide
11 Apr 2021
Vaccine passports spark controversy
11 Apr 2021
UK research review is sceptical of medical treatment for gender dysphoria
11 Apr 2021
Is abortion a global public health emergency?
11 Apr 2021
‘Dignity in dying’ legislation fails in France and Latvia
11 Apr 2021

Home | About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | rss RSS | Archive | Bookmark and Share | michael@bioedge.org

BioEdge - New Media Foundation Ltd © 2004 - 2019