Ethics Has Been Redefined, Apparently

I've been sitting on this story for a week or so, trying to figure out what to do with it. Gleaned from WorldNetDaily.com, it's about Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, who is the winner of the 2003 World Technology Award for Ethics.

About Peter Singer, he is:

A controversial professor who advocates killing the disabled up to 28 days after birth . . . .[and]

. . . is known for launching the modern animal rights movement with his 1975 book "Animal Liberation," which argues against "speciesism."

He also says:

. . . animals should be accorded the same value as humans and should not be discriminated against because they belong to a non-human species.

The preceding paragraph is a ripe target for extended comment. "Accorded the same value as humans" is a bewildering statement. What on earth does it mean? Same value in the job market? Pay the same airline fare?

The second part is even more bizarre. Singer says that animals should not be discriminated against. Does this mean equal pay, equal housing, equal opportunity to be admitted to the University of Michigan Law School? What, pray tell, is "animal discrimination" and how do we prevent it?

I could continue on about the ridiculousness of Singer's Animal Liberation philosophy, but that's not why I write this post. The point I want to emphasize is that there seems to be a dramatic redefining of the word 'ethics.'

So update your glossary. The revised definition is:

Ethics - the set of moral values which A) advocates killing disabled babies within 28 days after birth and B) is recognized by the World Technology Network.

I hope a timely revision is incorporated into the curricula for educating all future professors of bioethics. Click the link for the complete report.