Editing Peter Singer (section)

=== Criticism ===
Singer's positions have been attacked by many different groups concerned with what they see as an attack upon human dignity, from advocates for disabled people to right-to-life supporters. He is also criticized by Roman Catholics and other Christians who think that Singer is immoral. 

Critics argue that Singer is in no position to judge the quality of life of disabled people. In Germany, his position has been compared to the Nazi practice of murdering "unworthy life", and his lectures have been repeatedly disrupted. Some claim that Singer's utilitarian ideas lead to eugenics. Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."<ref>Don Felder, "[http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp Professor Death will fit right in at Princeton], ''Jewish World Review'', October 28, 1998.</ref> Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.<ref>http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm</ref> Singer's conclusions in controversial areas such as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia may help explain why his works have attracted particular attention.

Some commentators expressed their disapproval at the publication of Singer's review essay in which he discusses bestiality as a logical conclusion to some of the arguments he has made with respect to the relationship of humans to animals.<ref>"[http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=85000772 Animal Crackers]", ''The Wall Street Journal'', March 30, 2001.</ref>

Proponents of other ethical systems like deontology or virtue ethics have found in Singer's work ammunition against utilitarianism and its consequentialism (that is, its assumption that the morality of an act is to be evaluated according to its consequences). They claim that his conclusions show that utilitarianism may lead to eugenics, infanticide, or even justification of torture{{Fact|date=February 2007}} in certain circumstances.

Singer has replied that many people judge him based on secondhand summaries and short quotations taken out of context, not his books or articles.  For example, when people hear that Singer thinks that a dog has the same moral importance as a newborn baby, they might interpret the statement as dehumanising, because of the low value traditionally placed on the interests of animals.  However, although Singer does not regard the newborn child as deserving the same degree of consideration as an adult, he regards animals as deserving a much higher degree of consideration than they have traditionally been given.<ref>"[T]he aim of my argument is to elevate the status of animals rather than to lower the status of any humans" (''Practical Ethics'', p. 77).</ref>

Singer experienced the complexities of some of these questions in his own life. Singer's mother had Alzheimer's disease, which rendered her, in Singer's system, a "nonperson".  He did not have her euthanised, saying, "I think this has made me see how the issues of someone with these kinds of problems are really very difficult".<ref>Quoted in Michael Specter, "[http://www.michaelspecter.com/ny/1999/1999_09_06_philosopher.html The Dangerous Philosopher]", ''The New Yorker'', September 6, 1999.</ref> In an interview with Ronald Bailey published in December 2000 he explained that he is not the only person who is involved in making decisions about his mother (he has a sister). He did say that if he were solely responsible, his mother might not be alive today.<ref>Ronald Bailey, "[http://www.reason.com/0012/rb.the.shtml The Pursuit of Happiness]", ''Reason (magazine)'', December 2000.</ref> (Singer's mother died shortly thereafter.) This incident has led to accusations of hypocrisy. However,  Singer has never argued that a non-person who is not suffering ''has'' to be euthanised — only that it could be ''morally acceptable'' to do so.