Slippery slope of ‘cancel culture’

It would have been very difficult to have an open conversation about euthanasia in New Zealand 40 years ago, but in just seven months, the entire country will vote on that immensely serious moral question. Such is the progress society makes, often aided by philosophers, scientists and other professional thinkers.

Australian moral philosopher Peter Singer, who is sometimes said to be the world’s most influential living philosopher, was initially famous for a defence of animal rights that seemed enormously radical when proposed in the 1970s but seems almost run of the mill now. His book, Animal Liberation, has been a bible for animal welfare organisations such as Safe and the growing vegan community.

More recently, he has been concerned with altruism and aims to persuade those in the prosperous West that they have a responsibility towards people in the developing world. Again, this once seemed fringe but is now accepted. How we can all ‘‘do more to help people in extreme poverty’’ is to be the focus of four speaking engagements in New Zealand and Australia in June.

But one of the engagements has been jeopardised by the venue’s cancellation. SkyCity in Auckland was to be the third and only New Zealand stop on the tour, but SkyCity cancelled the booking, fearing ‘‘reputational damage’’ after opposition from the disability community.

SkyCity, whose core business is running a casino, has said that Singer’s views seem contrary to SkyCity’s values of ‘‘diversity and inclusivity’’. A new venue has not been confirmed.

Obviously, it was not views on poverty, altruism and animal welfare that lacked diversity and inclusivity. Disability activists were concerned about Singer’s argument that parents should have the right to euthanise severely disabled children. It flowed out of his thinking about quality of life and the reduction of suffering, which is also at the core of his views on animal rights.

Over the past few days, Singer has been grossly misrepresented as someone coming to New Zealand to ‘‘speak about how we should kill disabled babies’’, as one media outlet put it. Another outlet suggested Singer was somehow akin to infamous YouTube activists Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux, whose Auckland appearance was cancelled in 2018.

It is the nature of the internet age that complex and nuanced arguments like Singer’s will be made to look as simple as those pushed by Southern and Molyneux. There is also a ‘‘cancel culture’’ that believes the best way to oppose an idea is to ensure it is not heard.

Claims that free speech is under threat are thrown around too liberally by the political Right, but the cancellation of Singer, following controversies surrounding Southern, Molyneux and former National leader Don Brash, shows that slippery slope arguments have real validity. First they came for the YouTubers, then they came for the serious philosophers.

Singer has been to New Zealand before. A talk in Christchurch in 2015 was notable both for the lack of protests and the deep engagement with tricky and important moral issues. The disability question did not arise. Instead, Singer spoke eloquently about the need for countries like New Zealand to take more Syrian refugees and support other countries in the region.

He also practises what he preaches, by giving away 40 per cent of his income to charity. The most likely result of a speaking engagement to a full house is that he convinces a portion of those who can afford the ticket price to do likewise. When such an event is cancelled, who really loses out?

First they came for the YouTubers, then they came for the serious philosophers.