Close Menu
Honi Soit
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Trending
    • UTS elects new Chancellor
    • Out of the Deep: The Story of a Shark Kid Who Dared to Question Fear
    • Prima Facie: Losing faith in a system you truly believed in
    • Jason Clare seeks replacement for ANU Chancellor Julie Bishop after $790,000 expense report
    • ‘If you silence someone or shush someone, you can get out’: SISTREN is an unabashed celebration of black and trans joy. Is Australia ready?
    • Mark Gowing waxes lyrical on aesthetics, time, language, and his new exhibition ‘This one is a song’
    • NTEU wins wage theft case against Monash University
    • Turning Kindness Into Strength in ‘A Different Kind of Power’
    • About
    • Print Edition
    • Student Journalism Conference 2025
    • Writing Comp
    • Advertise
    • Locations
    • Contact
    Facebook Instagram X (Twitter) TikTok
    Honi SoitHoni Soit
    Thursday, July 10
    • News
    • Analysis
    • Culture
    • Opinion
    • University
    • Features
    • Perspective
    • Investigation
    • Reviews
    • Comedy
    • Student Journalism Conference 2025
    Honi Soit
    Home»News

    Clash of the Intellectual Titans: Singer vs Fisher

    By Imogen GrantAugust 19, 2015 News 3 Mins Read
    Share
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email

    Euthanasia in Australia remains an unresolved moral conundrum, which the public, especially the legislators, are yet to make up their minds on. On August 13, the University of Sydney Catholic Society held what will probably be their magnum opus—a debate between the renowned utilitarian philosopher Professor Peter Singer, and the current Archbishop of Sydney, Anthony Fisher.

    The debate, “Should voluntary euthanasia be legalised?” was spearheaded by the affirmative Singer, who made the simple distinction between voluntary euthanasia and murder. He asked the audience “why do we normally consider killing an innocent person wrong and a crime?” Primarily, he argued, because it is a violation of their autonomy and deprives them of future good experiences. This is separate to voluntary euthanasia, which is about respecting the educated and autonomous choice of a terminally ill patient.

    Conversely, Archbishop Fisher predictably argued that voluntary euthanasia “creates two classes of people: those whose lives we value and those whose lives we don’t.” He said that comforting the terminally ill requires more from us and, therefore, places a higher value on human life.

    Clearly a believer in the certainty of death and taxes, Fisher warned about the “bracket creep” of euthanasia. This slippery slope argument suggests that it might only be terminally ill patients now, but next it will be any “love-struck teenager”.

    Singer strongly rejected this claim. In the Netherlands, the 5,000 incidents of voluntary euthanasia in a year only account for 3% of total deaths. Moreover, the patients were disproportionately white, under the age of 65, and with above average levels of education. Therefore, discounting Fisher’s view that it is the vulnerable and elderly most at risk.

    Moreover, physicians frequently euthanise patients. Legalising voluntary euthanasia would allow for its regulation and provide safeguards to prevent its abuse.

    The questions from the audience reflected the strong Catholic presence at the debate. Nearly all of the questions were antagonistic towards Singer. One questioner, who obviously hadn’t read his work, even asked, “who are you to decide when some lives are worth more than others?” Did she really think that Singer was an atheist boogieman out to kill all terminally ill patients?

    Singer became increasingly irritated and repeatedly requested that questions be kept within the parameter of the debate—voluntary euthanasia—which automatically excludes those, such as children, who are unable to consent.

    Fundamentally, it appeared that the two speakers were engaging in separate debates. Singer spoke exclusively about voluntary euthanasia, whereas Fisher directed the debate towards a broader discussion concerning the intrinsic value of human life.

    With little overlap in the speakers’ arguments, there was no clear winner. With nothing resolved, the debate ended with a chance for audience members to have a book signed by their chosen hero and inflict them to an awkward selfie.

    Anthony Fisher Archbishop Catholic Society Death debate euthanasia Peter Singer

    Keep Reading

    UTS elects new Chancellor

    Jason Clare seeks replacement for ANU Chancellor Julie Bishop after $790,000 expense report

    NTEU wins wage theft case against Monash University

    USU June Board Meeting: Goodbye, Goodbye, Goodbye

    Former Greens candidate Hannah Thomas demands apology from Tony Burke and Sky News following eye injury at protest in Belmore

    USyd academics speak out against antisemitism allegations ahead of class action

    Just In

    UTS elects new Chancellor

    July 8, 2025

    Out of the Deep: The Story of a Shark Kid Who Dared to Question Fear

    July 8, 2025

    Prima Facie: Losing faith in a system you truly believed in

    July 8, 2025

    Jason Clare seeks replacement for ANU Chancellor Julie Bishop after $790,000 expense report

    July 7, 2025
    Editor's Picks

    Part One: The Tale of the Corporate University

    May 28, 2025

    “Thank you Conspiracy!” says Capitalism, as it survives another day

    May 21, 2025

    A meditation on God and the impossible pursuit of answers

    May 14, 2025

    We Will Be Remembered As More Than Administrative Errors

    May 7, 2025
    Facebook Instagram X (Twitter) TikTok

    From the mines

    • News
    • Analysis
    • Higher Education
    • Culture
    • Features
    • Investigation
    • Comedy
    • Editorials
    • Letters
    • Misc

     

    • Opinion
    • Perspective
    • Profiles
    • Reviews
    • Science
    • Social
    • Sport
    • SRC Reports
    • Tech

    Admin

    • About
    • Editors
    • Send an Anonymous Tip
    • Write/Produce/Create For Us
    • Print Edition
    • Locations
    • Archive
    • Advertise in Honi Soit
    • Contact Us

    We acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land, the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. The University of Sydney – where we write, publish and distribute Honi Soit – is on the sovereign land of these people. As students and journalists, we recognise our complicity in the ongoing colonisation of Indigenous land. In recognition of our privilege, we vow to not only include, but to prioritise and centre the experiences of Indigenous people, and to be reflective when we fail to be a counterpoint to the racism that plagues the mainstream media.

    © 2025 Honi Soit
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms
    • Accessibility

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.