Why I dislike Peter Singer: Cult of Death?
June 19th 2008 02:05
Why I dislike Peter Singer: Cult of Death?
The terms that probably confuses people the most are the terms that are laced with loaded language. Loaded with positive sounding adjectives and nouns rather than any real and concise description of what it is. For example in the old Wester Movies we heard the term ‘Indian Braves’ which instantly creates the image that they are all brave. Were they? Some yes, a majority maybe but to consider all of them brave is to stretch plausibility beyond reason. Hence we are left with a term that is unintentionally loaded with positive emotional language. Now this is not to condemn the makers of such film for taking a little artistic licence but to explain how easy it is to be swayed by a word that has positive emotional connotations. Just like ‘Happy Meal’, does it literally mean what it says.
Take the word ‘morality’ for instance. It is a word that has both positive and negative connotations for different groups in society. The whole problem with the word is not so much whether any morality is controversial but whose morality should dominate in society. So the word becomes both a form of condemnation and a way of promoting a policy. Morality becomes the evil ‘Nanny State Wowser’ or it can become ‘What saves us from Anarchy.’ Yet even more loaded these days is the word ‘Ethics’. Instead of having to deal with all the negative baggage associated with moralizing we can use a new more confusing term to sell the positive aspects of a policy. We hear the term used constantly in such things as ‘The Ethical treatment of animals’, ‘Ethical business practices’ and ‘Bio Ethics’. It has become the new buzz word that means ‘Good’ , ‘what good people do’ and ‘for the greater good.’ If there is a word to pervert, then people will find it and pervert it until it ceases to have any common meaning. ‘Ethics’ is such a word just like ‘Love’, ‘Compassion’, ‘Patriotic’ , ‘Courageous’, ‘Progressive’ and any positive sounding utterance that you can find. Policy promoters want you to feel good about what they say and positive language is the sugar coating that does the trick.
Professor Peter Singer is a master of positive spin and redefining words to make his policies sound reasonable and acceptable. He actively promotes himself as a Bio Ethicist and writes books on the subject of Ethics (Practical Ethics being perhaps his most famous to date). Yet the problem is with the term Bio Ethics is that it begs a question: Whose Ethics? In the case of Peter Singer’s Ethics it is without doubt Peter Singer. So we are left with nothing more than a subjective view of what should be right and wrong decision about life and death as deemed by Peter Singer. This is fine if he was only talking about alcohol drinking habits and clothing attire but that is not the case. Peter Singer’s ‘Ethical’ pronouncements deal with the power of life and death over humans.
There is a lot people can say about his qualifications and his elevated position at Princeton in the USA; there is a lot that can be said about what people see as his achievements in almost singlehandedly starting Animal Liberation and there is even a lot that people can about his intellectual prowess. However it is his policies that matter well beyond the princely adulation of his adoring fans. It is what he promotes and who he influencing that matters. The question is not whether Peter Singer is some intellectual superstar but whether his agenda is worthy of subscription.
I make no secret of my dislike of Peter Singer’s agenda as I think that he is working hard to fulfill some self styled revolution in killing. How do I come to this conclusion? Just read some of his quotes.
Peter Singer promotion of infanticide:
“Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.”
"When the death of the disabled infant,...will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed."
“Therefore, if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.”
And be ruthless about it:
"put aside feelings based on its small, helpless and — sometimes — cute appearance, so we can look at the more ethically relevant aspects, such as its quality of life.”
Peter Singer on the value of a Human Life:
" Human life is not sacrosanct, but a certain kind of life can be "meaningful."
“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”
“the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological and demographic developments.”
Peter Singer compares the value of Humans to Animals:
“An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable.”
“All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals.”
"If we compare a severely defective human infant with a nonhuman animal, a dog or a pig, for example, we will often find the nonhuman to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and anything else that can plausibly be considered morally significant."
On the Question of Bestiality:
Really Long Link
exert "mutually satisfying activities of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals.”
Just read it and shiver. Don’t eat meat, marry it instead?
Conclusion
Though it may not be cool to dump on Professor Peter Singer I am happy to do so. Cool is for those that care about such social climbing. As for me I know that this is a mere blog and few people here are in a position to change the world. If the word ‘Ethical’ has any meaning in the Peter Singer universe then that meaning is seriously warped to match his own agenda.
Professor Peter Singer
The terms that probably confuses people the most are the terms that are laced with loaded language. Loaded with positive sounding adjectives and nouns rather than any real and concise description of what it is. For example in the old Wester Movies we heard the term ‘Indian Braves’ which instantly creates the image that they are all brave. Were they? Some yes, a majority maybe but to consider all of them brave is to stretch plausibility beyond reason. Hence we are left with a term that is unintentionally loaded with positive emotional language. Now this is not to condemn the makers of such film for taking a little artistic licence but to explain how easy it is to be swayed by a word that has positive emotional connotations. Just like ‘Happy Meal’, does it literally mean what it says.
Take the word ‘morality’ for instance. It is a word that has both positive and negative connotations for different groups in society. The whole problem with the word is not so much whether any morality is controversial but whose morality should dominate in society. So the word becomes both a form of condemnation and a way of promoting a policy. Morality becomes the evil ‘Nanny State Wowser’ or it can become ‘What saves us from Anarchy.’ Yet even more loaded these days is the word ‘Ethics’. Instead of having to deal with all the negative baggage associated with moralizing we can use a new more confusing term to sell the positive aspects of a policy. We hear the term used constantly in such things as ‘The Ethical treatment of animals’, ‘Ethical business practices’ and ‘Bio Ethics’. It has become the new buzz word that means ‘Good’ , ‘what good people do’ and ‘for the greater good.’ If there is a word to pervert, then people will find it and pervert it until it ceases to have any common meaning. ‘Ethics’ is such a word just like ‘Love’, ‘Compassion’, ‘Patriotic’ , ‘Courageous’, ‘Progressive’ and any positive sounding utterance that you can find. Policy promoters want you to feel good about what they say and positive language is the sugar coating that does the trick.
Professor Peter Singer is a master of positive spin and redefining words to make his policies sound reasonable and acceptable. He actively promotes himself as a Bio Ethicist and writes books on the subject of Ethics (Practical Ethics being perhaps his most famous to date). Yet the problem is with the term Bio Ethics is that it begs a question: Whose Ethics? In the case of Peter Singer’s Ethics it is without doubt Peter Singer. So we are left with nothing more than a subjective view of what should be right and wrong decision about life and death as deemed by Peter Singer. This is fine if he was only talking about alcohol drinking habits and clothing attire but that is not the case. Peter Singer’s ‘Ethical’ pronouncements deal with the power of life and death over humans.
There is a lot people can say about his qualifications and his elevated position at Princeton in the USA; there is a lot that can be said about what people see as his achievements in almost singlehandedly starting Animal Liberation and there is even a lot that people can about his intellectual prowess. However it is his policies that matter well beyond the princely adulation of his adoring fans. It is what he promotes and who he influencing that matters. The question is not whether Peter Singer is some intellectual superstar but whether his agenda is worthy of subscription.
I make no secret of my dislike of Peter Singer’s agenda as I think that he is working hard to fulfill some self styled revolution in killing. How do I come to this conclusion? Just read some of his quotes.
Peter Singer promotion of infanticide:
“Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.”
"When the death of the disabled infant,...will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed."
“Therefore, if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.”
And be ruthless about it:
"put aside feelings based on its small, helpless and — sometimes — cute appearance, so we can look at the more ethically relevant aspects, such as its quality of life.”
Peter Singer on the value of a Human Life:
" Human life is not sacrosanct, but a certain kind of life can be "meaningful."
“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”
“the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological and demographic developments.”
Peter Singer compares the value of Humans to Animals:
“An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable.”
“All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals.”
"If we compare a severely defective human infant with a nonhuman animal, a dog or a pig, for example, we will often find the nonhuman to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and anything else that can plausibly be considered morally significant."
On the Question of Bestiality:
Really Long Link
exert "mutually satisfying activities of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals.”
Just read it and shiver. Don’t eat meat, marry it instead?
As long as it concenting adults huh?
Conclusion
Though it may not be cool to dump on Professor Peter Singer I am happy to do so. Cool is for those that care about such social climbing. As for me I know that this is a mere blog and few people here are in a position to change the world. If the word ‘Ethical’ has any meaning in the Peter Singer universe then that meaning is seriously warped to match his own agenda.
| 54 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
I am inclined to agree with Simon.
Who hires him is the question.
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
A Global Citizen
Paranormal Paranormal
Is Why
Alaska Chronicle
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
Unfortunately he is your problem now.
Lecturer at Princeton no doubt.
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
A Global Citizen
Paranormal Paranormal
Is Why
Alaska Chronicle
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Will that be animal Hell or human Hell?
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
A Global Citizen
Paranormal Paranormal
Is Why
Alaska Chronicle
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
A Global Citizen
Paranormal Paranormal
Is Why
Alaska Chronicle