Talk:Alfred Hoche

Attempted slur on Singer
I found this line in the article to be curious:

"Today we find Hoche's ideas influence the vast majority of people calling for the legalisation of euthanasia although many are probably unaware of this and some deny having any connection to them. An example is the Australian philosopher, Peter Singer."

No support is offered for the rather bold claim that supporters of modern euthanasia movements have been influenced by Hoche. These days, euthanasia is often a patients' rights issue and has little to do with relieving society of a burden. This sounds like right-wing propoganda and does not belong in the Wikipedia.


 * I disagree. Anyone who would argue against that line should compare Hoche's views to what Singer has to say on the subject. (http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993.htm). Note that this links to an edited version. In the original 1991 version of Practical Ethics, Singer says "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all". (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1484488). FTR, I happen to be a left winger (anarcho-communist) and did not write the line being objected to.

Dignity/indignity, value of live is the common issue and the base of every propaganda pro euthanasia. And legally, euthanasia is not "often a patients' right" but a legal permission which allows the doctors to kill patients without punishment, thus a relieving of legal punishment, for example read the laws on euthanasia in Netherlands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.244.26.79 (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The «relevance» paragraph attacking Singer should go, IMHO. It is not about Hoche himself, but about attacks against Singer. It adds nothing to the characterisation of Hoche himself. If someone wants to put those anti-Singer references in somewhere, the article on Peter Singer would be the right place. And there, it would have to be done in a NPOV fashion, not just sneaked in. David Olivier (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed. David Olivier (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You have also removed the reference to Hoche in Singer. So where do you think that a discussion of the near identical nature of Singer and Hoche's arguments on euthanasia should go? You may not wish to read the references and make up your own mind, but why do you think it appropriate to prevent others from doing so? With due respect (i.e. not much) you are clearly intolerant of any criticism of Singer in any forum. I have reverted your edit and removed your censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.105.207 (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies to DO. I had not properly read his comment when I made the last edit. However I disagree that any one point needs to be NPOV (especially if in the Criticisms section). Its really the article as a whole that should be NPOV. I also disagree that pointing out that several authors note the similarity between Singer and Hoche on euthanasia could be characterised as a departure from NPOV. It is simply a statement of fact. Note also that a reference to Singer himself in which he attempts to refute allegations that his logic is likely to facilitate genocide is included - so it can't even be accused of lacking balance. This question is very topical now as the Australian Greens are attempting to relegalise euthanasia in the NT - a territory notorious for its racialised politics. If DO would like to make an appropriate entry under Singer, I invite him to do so. Otherwise, I request that he leaves the Hoche entry as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.105.207 (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the policy is that anything put in any article must be NPOV. That doesn't mean that you cannot cite specific opinions — of course you can. You can say that some author says that Peter Singer is the devil. But that doesn't mean that you can, on the mere basis of what that author says, assert that Peter Singer is the devil.

The current wording is: “several authors have pointed out similarities between the arguments of Hoche and those of (...) Peter Singer”. That wording asserts that those similarities actually exist. If I say “He pointed out dirt on my shoes”, it means that I accept that there was dirt on my shoes. But it is not a universally recognized fact that there really are significant similarities between the arguments of Hoche and those of Peter Singer. So that wording is not acceptable.

The title of the paragraph itself — “Hoche's relevance today” — is POV in the same way. It asserts that Hoche is relevant today. Why? Just because a few selected authors say so?

The fact that some authors claim that there is a link between Alfred Hoche and Peter Singer may well as such (i.e. as the fact that they say it, not as its being true) be worth mentioning on Wikipedia. But it is obviously an information about Peter Singer and his ideas. The authors you cite are not interested in the life and works of an obscure Nazi, but in the contemporary debate on ethics, on euthanasia and on Singer's ideas. So the place to put that information is in the article on Peter Singer, not in that on Hoche. The fact that you include, in support of the inclusion of that section, a reference to a text by Singer in which he doesn't mention Hoche at all shows how little that section has to do with Hoche.

As I said, I am not against that debate being mentioned. But I am opposed to attempts to give Peter Singer a bad name by going around peppering unrelated articles with slurs against him. The mention of the debate about a link between Singer and the Nazis should go in the article on Singer, not elsewhere.

David Olivier (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that any fair reading would acknowledge that there is more than an *assertion* that similarities exist between two utilitarian advocates of eugenics and euthanasia who carefully divide euthanasia into voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary then go on to assert that those below a certain level of mental function - especially those born that way - are not 'persons' and do not have a claim to a right to existence. Have you even read Singer's piece in full? I would suggest that, were he alive today, Hoche would have a case for accusing Singer of plagiarism. Singer's original version even refers to 'defective infants' (including those suffering from hemophilia - an eminently treatable, non-disabling condition - albeit an inheritable one) rather than 'disabled infants'. (BTW, I have asked Singer in person how he defines 'disabled person' - he replied that it is anyone whose capabilities fall significantly below the social norm). There are several other striking similarities between their arguments and, again, I invite you to read Singer and decide for yourself. I included it because it is referred to in the other references which compare Singer to Hoche (or rather, the more strongly worded first edition of Practical Ethics is) and because its seems fair to me that readers should be able to see Singer's entire argument in context to decide whether they agree with Wright, O'Mathúna, etc.


 * Hoche was not a Nazi (at least as far as I have been able to determine and certainly not when he wrote "Jahresringe ..." - which was published when the Nazi Party was less than a year old). He merely provided the (utilitarian) moral rationale for others who were to implement Aktion T4. However I concede that there are important differences between the two. For example, Hoche did not have the benefit of hindsight. So the assertion by Tilde Marchionini-Soetbeer that he could not have foreseen how his ideas would be implemented has at least some credibility. Singer *is* aware of the argument that his ideas might promote genocide, but attempts to refute it by insisting that the *aims* are what counts - a rather odd position for a utilitarian to take. (He also makes some assertions about Aktion T4 which are historically false in his attempt to distinguish between his own ideas and those that led to genocide - though, as is the case with Hoche, Singer does not mention T4 by name).


 * If you check the article history you will see that I did not coin the section heading and I have toned the language down considerably from the original version (as well as adding references). But I disagree with you that the title is not relevant. it is precisely because Singer has revived Hoche's ideas at a time that the environment and medical, economic and political systems are all under increasing stress that we *should* be contemplating where such thinking might lead today. Its not as if Australia's Northern Territory is so much more civilised and enlightened than Weimar Germany was. Yes, it is POV, but if you think it is not NPOV you should explain why. I am open to suggestions for an alternative heading. How about "Hoche's Legacy"? You would also presumably be aware that there are far more than 'a *few* selected authors' who compare Singer with Hoche. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=hoche+%22Peter+Singer%22&start=90&sa=N


 * I note from your own 'talk' page that your views are somewhat different when its *your* POV. I also note that this is not the first time you have deleted Wikipedia entries you disagree with.


 * I think you have a valid argument in suggesting that this should go in the Singer article. I would appreciate it if you would do so. The simple link I put between the pages *was* lazy. However I would not appreciate it if you simply flushed it down the memory hole again. All I did, while researching the history of utilitarian eugenics and euthanasia, was notice the longstanding section in Hoche and tidy it up (after drawing it to the attention of a colleague who supports Singer and initially deleted it). If you feel inspired to integrate this into the 'Abortion, euthanasia and infanticide' or 'Criticism' section of Singer's page, please go ahead (though, from my POV, the former option would tend to denigrate the notion of non-eugenic abortion. I do *not* see infanticide as a morally valid form of family planning). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.104.107 (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have changed the wording. Does it meet your definition of NPOV now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.104.107 (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are similarities between Alfred Hoche and Peter Singer; for instance, both have noses. Yes, that's irrelevant. In effect: what matters is not whether there are similarities between Hoche and Singer, but whether the similarities are relevant or not, and if so, relevant for what. To point out that they both use some of the same words and distinctions in discussions on euthanasia means just about nothing by itself. Any person who is going to consider whether euthanasia may sometimes be justified will be brought to make distinctions similar to those between voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia made by Peter Singer, and — I'll take your word for it — Alfred Hoche.

For you to conclude that that necessarily implies that what Peter Singer advocates is bad, like what the Nazis did, is clearly your POV. You are of course entitled to your opinions, and as I say on my user page, I don't believe in something like absolute NPOV. But there is some way to get some middle ground, and the way the comparison with Singer is made on the Hoche page is certainly not in that middle ground. I personally believe that Kant's philosophy, for instance, has much more to do with the Nazis than does utilitarianism; I could cite what Eichmann said about his carrying on his duty regardless of the consequences and in particular regardless of the the suffering caused, as he said he had learned to do reading Kant. But then, does that justify adding to the page on Adolf Eichmann a section with references against Kant?

You seem sincerely to think that anyone who will read Peter Singer's works will necessarily find them repulsive. But a lot of people, I among them, have read a lot of his works, and do not find them repulsive at all, but well-argued, reflective and generous. Conversely, there are probably some things that you find normal and that I, like Peter Singer, find abhorrent. We might try to argue all that, but as long as we disagree let's recognize that we disagree, and try despite that to get along a bit in the editing process.

At least one aspect of getting NPOV is in being competent, at least enough not to state blatantly false information. Your statements that Hoche is a utilitarian are such, and show that you currently don't know much what utilitarianism is. Some of the articles you cite display the same ignorance. Of course, Hoche did do some utilitarian-sounding calculations, but everyone does. There are a lot of utilitarian-sounding arguments in the anti-Singer articles you cite, such as a heavy use of the slippery-slope argument (argument not on the rightness itself of allowing euthanasia in some cases, but on the long term consequences). If that makes those authors utilitarians, and Hoche a utilitarian, then everyone is a utilitarian and the word has no more meaning.

Thanks for changing the wording of the paragraph, but I still feel that the reference should not be in this article, but, eventually, in the one on Peter Singer. I won't put it there myself, due to lack of time to do such a thing seriously, but I think that if you feel you can put it there in a relatively NPOV fashion, you should. I have also called this discussion to the attention of those who watch the Peter Singer talk page, because it seems clear to me that this is much more about Peter Singer than about Alfred Hoche.

David Olivier (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made no claim that Singer's work is 'bad' and have already pointed out that - to the best of my knowledge - Hoche was not a Nazi. *Singer* might conclude that his own work is bad if it leads to a repeat of Aktion T4 (or not, it depends on whether he thinks T4 was bad I guess), as he is a *consequentialist*. He claims to judge the morality of actions by outcome ('the ends justify the means'). I am not a consequentialist. I place moral weight upon intent (among other things). I do not claim to know what Singer's intent is when he advocates non-voluntary euthanasia for 'defective infants'. His *stated* intent is not necessarily 'bad' at all. And neither was Hoche's - even though the notion of racial hygiene is rather distasteful from my mixed race POV. Hoche seemed to honestly believe that better 'racial hygiene' would be for the greater good of mankind, just as Singer seems to honestly believe that killing infants with hemophilia or Down's Syndrome would be (in spite of offering no evidence that such people have lower quality of life or that their parents do).


 * I have read Singer and other moral philosophers extensively (otherwise I would have failed my degree) and of them all, I have only seen Singer and Hoche & Binding make arguments similar to those I pointed out above (unless you count those like John Harris, who admit being influenced by Singer - since 1945 it has been very unfashionable to admit being influenced by Hoche). If you are better informed than I on that I would be very grateful if you would provide references. Arguing that infants and the severely mentally disabled are automatically 'non-persons' with no right to exist is not something I have struck often - even among others who argue that it may be OK to kill them. Personhood is usually seen as a social or legal status, not an intellectual or cognitive one (which is probably why many pet owners see their pet as a 'person' - by virtue of its social position - but would not see wild varieties as such, even though the latter are usually smarter). I strongly suspect that Singer would have been aware of Hoche's arguments before writing 'Practical Ethics', though he does not refer to it in his work (unless his attempt to argue that implementation of his own ideas would not lead to genocide is a backhanded acknowledgment of his influences).


 * If I was forced to judge Singer's morality it would primarily be from my personal contact with him, not his ideas. In particular, I would be inclined to judge him from my observation of his responses to disabled people he has hurt and frightened who have tried to politely discuss the impact of his ideas with him. And that would also be POV and not appropriate for Wikipedia. However, I do find intriguing the work by Koenigs, Young, et al, that suggests those with strongly utilitarian moral preferences might be brain damaged (i.e. 'defective' or 'disabled' according to Singer's own criteria). http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/vmpfc.pdf I don't consider people who are too impaired to make effective moral judgments to be 'bad' for failing to do so. And I would urge those on vegan diets to ensure they are getting adequate fat, protein and vitamin B12 ;).


 * I do not ask you to judge whether Hoche's or Singer's writings on euthanasia are 'repulsive'. Nor to opine as to whether either or both facilitate genocide. Merely to give your honest opinion as to whether they are similar (apart from noting both authors have noses).


 * I respect your view that Singer's arguments are "well-argued, reflective and generous", as I would have respected the view of many Weimar Germans (and Marchionini-Soetbeer) who would say the same about Hoche. As I also respect the views of many liberal Australians of the early 20th Century who honestly thought that it was best for all to take indigenous children away from their parents. I also think that they, and you, are at least partially wrong. But that is POV and I would not put it in the article.


 * You might indeed point out that some aspects of Kant's work could be construed as leading to the Nazi genocide. You might even agree with Alexander and blame Hegel http://www.restoringourheritage.com/articles/nej_medicaldictatorship.pdf (I would not - though I dislike Hegel's work). Personally, I am inclined to take at face value the (failed) defence offered by many of those at the Nuremberg Doctors Trial and attribute the ethical climate that enabled Aktion T4 to Hoche - especially as he, like Singer and unlike Kant, was a bioethicist who constructed an ethical framework within which it could be considered right for doctors to kill certain people without consent (or 'non-people' if you prefer). It would seem that you also blame Hoche. If not, why do you keep implying he was a Nazi and objecting to comparisons with Singer?


 * I *do* support the reference to Kant in the 'Eichmann in Jerusalem' Wikipedia entry and would also support a reference to it in the Eichmann entry. I strongly agree with Hanna Arendt that Eichmann's justifications for his own actions are vital to understanding both the man himself and how others might come to act in the same way. And my admiration of (though not wholehearted agreement with) Kant would not prompt me to censor such an entry or see it as 'anti-Kant'. Indeed, I believe that Eichmann's inability to think for himself and to instead 'pick a side and stick to it' is at the heart of a lot of the evil inherent in state and corporate bureaucracies and would lead to a repeat of such evil were euthanasia to be legalised (and thereby bureaucratised, commercialised and institutionalised). I would not repeat Eichmann's mistake out of some sort of misplaced loyalty to Kant. I very strongly disagree with the court appointed psychiatrists that Eichmann's attitude to his peer groups was 'highly desirable' - though it probably was 'normal'. (I can't resist noting here that psychiatrists are disproportionately represented among perpetrators and facilitators of genocide).


 * Just to clarify - I do not think that Hoche was *morally* to blame for the actions of the T4 doctors, any more than I think that axe manufacturers are morally culpable for the actions of axe murderers. To the degree we are autonomous, we are responsible for our *own* actions. To the degree we are not autonomous, we are blameless for them. The T4 doctors and administrators and those who commanded them were to blame for T4. I *do* think that Hoche's ideas *influenced* those doctor's though. And I think he influenced Singer (though it can be very hard to pick the genesis of certain ideas - perhaps both Hoche and Singer were influenced by someone earlier). And I do believe that Singer is either wrongheaded or dishonest when he argues that widespread adoption of his ideas would not increase the likelihood of further genocides - especially his claim that requiring more than one medical professional to sign off keeps us off the 'slippery slope'. That didn't work in the Netherlands, Chelmsford Private Hospital, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study or Aktion T4 (which, contrary to Singer's allegations, began with those whose parents or guardians had consented to their killing). It won't be someone like Singer who implements the next Aktion T4. It will be someone like Eichmann who substitutes a loyalty to Singer (or to a group or party that has embraced Singer) for her own autonomous ethical judgment.


 * You are correct that I don't know whether Hoche (or Singer) are/were *personally* utilitarian (Singer apparently did not try to kill his disabled mother, for example). You are also correct in implying that most people make both utilitarian and non-utilitarian moral judgements in their day to day life. I might have more correctly pointed out that both Hoche and Singer brought very similar utilitarian methods to bear on the question of euthanasia and arrived at very similar conclusions - and that Hoche did so over 50 years before Singer. But I used the same sort of shorthand the Singer article uses in designating someone 'utilitarian' from their body of work, rather than making assumptions about how they get through their day. I don't think many people would argue that Singer is *not* a utilitarian because he uses non-utilitarian arguments to claim that his ideas could not lead to genocide (i.e. drawing consequentialist conclusions from the non-consequentialist consideration that 'it is the thought that counts'). And I don't know to what degree Wright or O'Mathúna consider themselves non-utilitarian (or 'anti-Singer' for that matter). As a bioethicist, presumably O'Mathúna agrees with the utilitarianism inherent in the triage process. They are merely stating where they believe arguments like Hoche's and Singer's on euthanasia might lead were they to take hold in the medical profession again. I think the direction euthanasia in the Netherlands has taken (and is starting to take in Switzerland http://v1.dpi.org/lang-en/resources/details?page=863) since it was legalised supports them and tends to refute Singer.


 * What I can say, however, is that I have no objection in *principle* to voluntary doctor assisted suicide. My objections to it are consequentialist (the effect it has on the peace of mind and social status of the stigmatised and the risk that it will lead to non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia). But I do not consider myself a consequentialist, as I do not believe that public or private morality can be built primarily on consequentialist considerations (I would agree with Nozick that the 'Utility Monster' renders all such calculations invalid). Even utilitarians - whether hedonist or preference - cannot use consequentialism to claim that it is morally right to try to maximise pleasure or satisfaction of preference. They take that as a given or appeal to principles, empathy or examples to justify it.


 * And, for the record, I have nothing against non-specieism. I've subscribed to something similar since before Singer was even published. But I *do* disagree strongly with Mill, Hoche, Singer and anyone else who attempts to put differential values on human lives or to designate some as 'non-persons', as I believe that under times of social stress it will inevitably lead to suggestions that some people be actively 'euthanased' against their will - if only to 'smooth their dying pillow'. As an Australian of indigenous descent, I can hardly claim NPOV on that issue. I wonder what Singer's Holocaust surviving parents' POV would have been.


 * I probably have enough spare time right now to put an entry in the Singer article. However I do not have the time to fight a never-ending edit war. Not only do your actions (and those of my pro-Singer colleague) suggest that any such entry would be under constant attack from those who believe that pointing out similarities between the work of Hoche and Singer is to be 'anti-Singer'. The historical evidence also suggests that any reference to Hoche would be removed. (See for example, http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Peter_Singer_-_Applied_ethics/id/1842561, which I did not realise was extracted from an earlier version of the Singer entry when I first referenced it). Your, ahem, calling 'this discussion to the attention of those who watch the Peter Singer talk page' tends to confirm that view. Are they 'those' who share your views perchance?

203.220.105.38 (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your lengthy answer. Admittedly, you do seem knowledgeable of the subject, much more than I had perceived. However I'm going away for a couple of days, so I won't be able to answer you before the end of the week. David Olivier (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)