Interaction between Peter Singer and Christian ethics, to the extent that it has happened at all, has been unproductive and often antagonistic. Singer sees himself as leading a 'Copernican Revolution' against a sanctity of life ethic, while many Christians associate his work with a 'culture of death.' Charles Camosy shows that this polarized understanding of the two positions is a mistake. While their conclusions about abortion and euthanasia may differ, there is surprising overlap in Christian and Singerite arguments, and disagreements are interesting and fruitful. Furthermore, it turns out that Christians and Singerites can even make common cause, for instance in matters such as global poverty and the dignity of non-human animals. Peter Singer and Christian ethics are far closer than almost anyone has imagined, and this book is valuable to those who are interested in fresh thinking about the relationship between religious and secular ethics.
I'm a professor of Christian Ethics at Fordham University in New York City who is interested in fostering conversation and solidarity between groups which sometimes find conversation difficult. The Roman Catholic traditions from which my work flows are a powerful wedge for breaking these often polarized impasses because, often with one foot planted firmly in either camp, they can light they way toward finding common ground useful for beginning fruitful interaction. In particular, a Roman Catholic understanding of the human person in both its individual and social aspects can serve as a bridge between 'moral status conservatives' and 'social justice liberals.'
My early work has focused especially on medical and clinical ethics with regard to stem cell research and, the focus of my first book, treatment of critically ill newborns in the neonatal intensive care unit. But my current book project takes intellectual solidarity in a new direction. The ethic of Peter Singer and a Christian ethic are thought to be diametrically opposed, but my thesis is that this polarized understanding is a mistake and that a close and charitable reading of the two approaches shows that they are similar enough for both fruitful and mutually-critical correlation. Indeed, I argue that they can work together for peace and justice on many different kinds of issues--from combating global poverty to the liberation of non-human animals.
In addition to serving on the ethics committee of the Children's Hospital of New York and as an advisory board member for the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, I've also been working on two other initiatives: (1) the Fordham Conversation Project--a group of young Roman Catholic theologians dedicated to finding ways to push back against the polarized division in the American Church, and (2) a conference at Princeton University which was designed to facilitate new ways to think and speak about abortion.
Here are some links related to the Princeton conference:
http://uchv.princeton.edu/Life_Choice/
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/10/is_there_common_ground_on_abortion.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2275072/
