Your thoughts on Peter Singer?

[HEyHEY]

I just saw "A dangerous mind" From where I'm sitting it doesn't seem as though Singer advocates death without permission. Although I don't agree with his "babies are not people" theory. I think they are people, they're just young people.

Truthfully I'm surprised euthanasia hasn't been made legal in Canada, everyone I know whether left or right wing is in favour of it. And fundies have almost no pull here....I don't get it.

What do you think of Singer?

[ermoore]

1. Terrible

Peter Singer is so far out there, he's really not worth taking serious any longer. Crazy.

[EllieDem]

2. If I remember correctly

Peter Singer thinks you can still kill a child up to 9 months old (after birth!) if its handicapped!! Naturally people with disabilities picket him all the time at Princeton. He's nuts.

[DemBones DemBones]

10. I believe that he thinks it's ethical to kill a child up to the age of two

years, and I'm not sure he specifies that they have to have a disability to make the killing justifiable. I think he just argues that the very young aren't fully conscious of themselves as separate beings.

An ethicist who argues for such acts is not someone I can consider ethical.

[LeahMira]

17. I don't think he advocates killing...

Peter Singer thinks you can still kill a child up to 9 months old (after birth!) if its handicapped!!

I think it's more like he doesn't think it necessary to take heroic measures to save an infant when it's apparent that there is no hope that the infant will survive or will live a pain-free life. I don't think he advocates outright killing so much as simply making the infant as comfortable as possible until it dies naturally.

He does understand "being human" as including awareness of self. When you think of some of the things that are done to infants that we generally approve because they "won't remember it," he has a point. I personally wonder if they don't remember it at some level, but maybe don't have language to describe the experience for memory and later recall. But who knows?

Anyhow, in the past, infants were abandoned after birth if they would have been a burden on the group or threatened the survival of the group by taking more resources than would be their "share" or by contributing less than their "share." The decisions, IOW, were made for the survival of many countered against the survival of this one.

Today, China has a policy of allowing only one child per family because of its population problems. How stringently they actually enforce it, I don't know.

Still, as earth is quickly becoming overpopulated and we are running out of resources or are unwilling to redistribute and conserve the resources we have, and as a consequence we fight wars in which thousands are killed in order to control more territory and resources for those who remain, we may find ourselves in the U.S. having to face "what to do" in the not too distant future. It might be a good thing to think about "what to do" now, before things become critical and choices are forced on us.

[Stargleamer]

3. He's anti-suffering

and so favors euthanasia if the baby is going to experience extreme suffering and then die.

Even if you feel different, bear in mind that Peter Singer is multi-faceted: He's a vegetarian, wrote "Animal Liberation" and just finished writing this book called "The Ethics of George W. Bush:

<http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/tom_brazaitis/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1074335519172181.xml>

In this book he castigates Bush for the harm he has done.

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. He's anti-suffering

So I suggest, because he makes so many suffer with his comments, that he euthanize himself.

[HEyHEY]

5. yowza

Strong words from muddle

[Stocat]

6. Peter Singer, how to explain

Hi this is my first time posting on DU! (And I'm doing it to defend Peter Singer of all things)

1) He is a philosopher

2) The general rule in philosophy is that you are supposed to give the best reading to your opponent that you possibly can.

3) Peter Singer espouses a brand of philosophy that seemingly would choose to kill people for the betterment of society or to increase general happiness.


Over the years I have written many college term papers defending and attacking Peter Singer's utilitarianism. And in a way I have grown to seriously respect the man. Because if you give Singer the best reading you possibly could you would never have to kill anyone to promote the general happiness, why you ask, because it isn't a democratic system. You do it on an individual level, and you hold yourself to the ethical litmus test of am I doing things to promote the general happiness? Also we seem to forget to give the appropriate weight to the matter of a persons life...Peter's philosophy seems to neglect to mention how much weight he would give to an individuals life. He seems to relish making people think he doesn't give life much value, which is the greatest disservice he does for his own set of values, and I feel is a discredit to him and to utilitarianism.

And you know that standard cliche hypothetical question: would you kill Hitler if you knew who he was (and what he was to become) if you were standing in a bar with him before the rise of the Nazi party....Our dear old Peter actually came up with the only coherent ethical theory that would allow you to ethically kill Hitler.

One more thing, attacking Singer has almost become cliche...but to me it seems on par with attacking soviet communism....All those true blood Americans point to corrupt Russian communism as an example of why communism is the root of all evil.....My friend that wasn't communism, it was a form of exploitation! The point is Peter Singer's philosophy is too easily discarded, because everybody jumps to what are in my opinion, the wrong conclusions based on first reactions and not based upon what the actual practice would look like.


-my two cents from a former philosophy student.

[Kanary]

8. Hi Stocat!

So glad to see your very first post!

Welcome to DU!

:hi: :hi: :hi:

:toast:


Kanary

[mdmc]

12. Great post

Welcome, welcome!
I really did click on this thread thinking it was discussing Pete Seeger... You know the folkie?

[BrotherBuzz]

13. I'm with you on that one...

Kumbaya and all that stuff.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. Rationalizations

First off, welcome to DU and thanks for an intelligent first post. I expect many more to come.

Now, come on. The summation of what you posted is a might rationalization of the unacceptable. Yes, in a free society, Singer gets to say whatever whacko crap he wants. In a free society, it behooves us to make it clear his comments are ridiculously insane.

[eridani]

7. He's at least consistent

He has spoken up in favor of consensual sex with animals, but this is a logical consequence of giving them the same legal status as people. After all, it's not OK to eat other people, but it's OK to have sex with them.

"The Love That Dare Not Bark Its Name"

[Broken]

9. oh

Yeah, I thought he was the guy who thinks sex with animals is a-okay. As long as you don't hurt them of course. Personally, I think it's quite messed up. That's just me though.

[mdmc]

11. welcome to DU, Broken

(I just clicked on this thread cause I thought it said Pete Seeger)

[RebelOne]

14. Well, I like him because he is an animal rights activist.

[earthman dave]

16. "Practical Ethics" made a lot of sense.

And the more the fundies attack him, the more I like the guy.

[KingofSwords]

18. he's no better than a Nazi

He said we should allow for the killing of severely disabled infants. He's a major enemy of disability rights advocates like myself. Singer does argue for death without permission, he's advocated killing babies(I'm not talking abortion).