• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

GWB "has the moral development of a 13-year-old boy"

a_unique_person

Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
50,637
Location
Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/16/1082055649708.html

President George Bush wants to be seen as a good Christian leader but, according to a new book by Australian professor Peter Singer, he actually has the moral development of a 13-year-old boy.

Professor Singer, a prominent ethicist whose own morality has been the subject of much debate, said Mr Bush saw the world "very simply, in black and white, as good versus evil, and he thinks that America is the good guy, and therefore whatever America does is right".

"That's incredibly dangerous when you are the leader of the most powerful nation on earth," Professor Singer told The Age. "But that belief is what enabled him to justify starting a war with Iraq that would cost thousands of innocent people their lives."

Professor Singer's book, The President of Good and Evil: the Ethics of George W. Bush, does not conclude that Mr Bush is himself evil "because that's not a word I throw around too much". Neither does Professor Singer go so far as to say that Mr Bush is stupid, "which a lot of other people might say. But I do think he's a moral failure, in his own terms, and in any terms."

Now, it should be said that Mr Bush likely has the same view of Professor Singer. After all, the Australian professor - who was recently described in The New Yorker as one of the most influential and controversial philosophers alive - believes that parents should be able to kill their disabled children; that animal lives have the same value as human lives; and that adult children should, in some circumstances, be able to decide when to end the lives of demented parents. So who is he to comment on the President's ethics?

"I hold a different view (of the sanctity of human life), it's true," Professor Singer said. "But Bush claims to believe that human life is sacred. So my book asks whether his statements about human life, and his willingness to go to war in Iraq are actually consistent, or is it evidence of muddled thinking?"

You may agree or disagree with Singers actual philosophy, but he is spot on about the sophistication of Dubyas approach to life. His ignorance has already failed America badly, and Dubya knows it.
 
Re: Re: GWB "has the moral development of a 13-year-old boy"

Ed said:


The guy sounds a bit nutsie. This in some perverse way makes him credible?

Singer's one of those annoying people who doesn't play along with accepted hypocrisies.

To pick an obvious example, there's no sane way to maintain that very late term abortions are okay and infanticide isn't. It just doesn't make sense. Squeezing something down a birth canal doesn't magically make a non-human into a human. But we accept the hypocrisy of acting as if it did, by and large.

Similarly "brain dead" people aren't dead. They're living, breathing, warm, pink and often perfectly viable organisms that just need someone to feed and water them. But we want to kill them when it suits us, and we figure it's okay because they are permanently unconscious, and besides we want their organs. So we make up this dumb doublethink term "brain dead" or "legally dead" and off we go.

Singer annoys people by pointing out that this is very woolly thinking, and so the sheep tend to want to write him off as a bit nutsie. As Wyndham pointed out, in the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man is in trouble.

Singer's a very smart guy. Read some of his books some time.
 
"Singer's a very smart guy. Read some of his books some time."

Do you work for him? If you don`t you should...you got me interested right off the bat. He`s gone on my reading list.
Any particular recommendations?
Thanks.
 
He makes an assumption that Bush really sees it as black/white. Bush sees himself as the "CEO president". He delegates while he merely enunciates the vision. I think the razor falls on the "evildoers" and such just being powerfully written vision language.
 
very simply, in black and white, as good versus evil, and he thinks that America is the good guy, and therefore whatever America does is right.
Bingo. Bush comes across to me as bizarrely narrow-minded. I do not trust that he has the basic aptitude to analyze complex problems in a rational way. At least that's the impression he conveys.
 
Isn't he one of the further-out PETA advocates? I believe he was asserting that human life is no more inherently valuable than a rat's... and this guy is calling Bush morally challenged?
It's also quite a leap of faith to assume that he could divine Bush's motives for the war was based on a black/white belief system. His criticism certainly isn;t logically rigorous.
 
Critical thinking at its worst. We see what we want to see. Bush is a dolt or morally bankrupt because that fits our world view. Why not look for the truth rather than shoe horn our ego into a facsimile of it?

This is the type of tripe that was spewed about Clinton. His willingness to kill children and innocent people to divert attention from Monica's testimony. Yes there was a correlation but was there cause and effect? Hey, it sounds good, if you hate Clinton it becomes true by default. Same with Bush. If you knew that the stole the election and that he is an idiot without any scruples then all of the evidence will simply prove you right.

And yes I brought up Clinton because he is a damn fine object lesson to the hypocrites who's definition of morality shifts with the blowing winds of politics.
 
Well, Bush is a bit of a dolt, but Peter Singer seems a few tiles short of a Mah-Jong set himself.
 
demon said:
"Singer's a very smart guy. Read some of his books some time."

Do you work for him? If you don`t you should...you got me interested right off the bat. He`s gone on my reading list.
Any particular recommendations?
Thanks.

You wouldn't like him, Demon, Skeptic assures me you are an anti-Semite. Although he may not be a Real Jew (TM). There seems to be an ever increasing number of them, for some reason.
 
RandFan said:
Critical thinking at its worst. We see what we want to see. Bush is a dolt or morally bankrupt because that fits our world view. Why not look for the truth rather than shoe horn our ego into a facsimile of it?

This is the type of tripe that was spewed about Clinton. His willingness to kill children and innocent people to divert attention from Monica's testimony. Yes there was a correlation but was there cause and effect? Hey, it sounds good, if you hate Clinton it becomes true by default. Same with Bush. If you knew that the stole the election and that he is an idiot without any scruples then all of the evidence will simply prove you right.

And yes I brought up Clinton because he is a damn fine object lesson to the hypocrites who's definition of morality shifts with the blowing winds of politics.

I think that you are the one who is guilty of critical thinking at it's worst. I have only provided a short cut/paste from an article about a book he has written. As he is a little better educated than Dubya, I may be better of believing him.

The Appointment of Professor Peter Singer
Every year Princeton appoints a number of senior scholars as new members of its tenured faculty. We look to these distinguished men and women to bring new vitality and continuing leadership to our programs of teaching and research. Some of these appointments come from our own untenured ranks, and we recruit others from outside of Princeton. In every case, we insist on someone who already is or has clear potential to be one of the leading scholars in his or her field, who is an excellent and committed teacher, and who will be a valued colleague and contributing citizen of this community over an extended period of time. Most of our appointments are uncontroversial. But every once in a while we make an appointment that is greeted with a mixture of accolades and controversy, and even some protest. Appointments like these give us an opportunity to discuss fundamental issues about a university's central purposes and core values.

The appointment of Professor Peter Singer, who will join our faculty next fall as the DeCamp Professor in the University Center for Human Values, is just such a case. There is no question about Professor Singer's eminence in the field of bioethics. He began his career at Oxford University, was appointed to a professorship at his home university (Monash) in Australia at the age of 30, has served as president of the International Association of Bioethics and as editor of its official journal (Bioethics), and won the National Book Council of Australia's prize for the best non-fiction book published in Australia in 1994 for his Rethinking Life and Death. His books, including Animal Liberation and Practical Ethics, have been translated into 15 languages and have been widely taught in ethics classes throughout Europe and the United States, including here at Princeton. He is a gifted teacher whose clarity and originality have made ethical issues come alive to a broad intellectual audience.

As Peter Unger, a distinguished professor of philosophy at New York University, wrote in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, "this world-renowned Australian may well be the most prominent professor his country has ever produced; by many measures, he's the most influential ethicist alive." When faculty members associated with our University Center for Human Values -- including eminent humanists, social scientists and scientists -- conducted a world-wide search for an exceptional teacher and scholar to hold the DeCamp Professorship, Peter Singer ranked first on their list, and their judgment was strongly endorsed in the letters we solicited from scholars at other universities who also are leaders in this field.

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/98/1207/singer.htm
 
crackmonkey said:
Isn't he one of the further-out PETA advocates? I believe he was asserting that human life is no more inherently valuable than a rat's...

That's a bit of a distortion. Singer would say that there is a difference of degree but not of kind between the value of a human life and the value of a rat/pig/dog/dolphin life.

He's certainly never argued that human lives and rat lives were equally valuable that I'm aware of.

and this guy is calling Bush morally challenged?
It's also quite a leap of faith to assume that he could divine Bush's motives for the war was based on a black/white belief system. His criticism certainly isn;t logically rigorous.

How do you know whether Singer's critique is logically rigorous if you haven't read the book?

Singer is a professional philosopher and a damned good one. I'd lay money that he's rigorous in his criticisms. He might be wrong or whatever (hey, I haven't read it either yet) but I'm certain he'll approach the topic intelligently.

BTW Demon, I'd recommend "Rethinking Life and Death" if my notes above got you interested and I don't work for him nor know the guy personally. We work in the same area, though.
 
That's a bit of a distortion.

I've read some of Singers work, and this pretty much sums up most of the criticisms levelled against him.

Your earlier description was rather spot on. He simply doesn't accept the absurd double standards we place on things. His works were pointed out to me by a friend after espousing similar principles that he does.
 
Professor Singer, a prominent ethicist whose own morality has been the subject of much debate...

That might have something to do with the fact that he advocates, inter alia, the right of parents to kill their unwanted or disabled babies within a "grace" period of a few months from birth, since he "doesn't see why the moment of birth is such a holy thing" (or words to that effect).

If Singer's views are what "advanced" and adult moral development means, thank God that Bush is stuck in the adolescent phase.

One should note that according to Singer (as seen in his columns in "Free Inquiry", if nowhere else), it isn't Bush alone, but the vast majority of humanity, who are "stuck" in the adolescent moral stage where they actually believe in chimeras like good and evil, or the sanctity of innocent lives, and above all are guilty of "speciesism"--the "racist" view that human lives are essentially more valuable than animal life (imagine that!).

Of course, in practice, the real result of abandoning "speciecism" isn't treating animals with human dignity, but (as his advice about babies shows) treating less-than-perfect humans (like the disabled or mentally retarded) as animals.

Taking moral criticism from Singer is a bit like taking diet tips from the fat lady in the circus.
 
I'm sure Singer is an impressively intelligent man, with a wall slathered in expensive awards and degrees.
How can he claim to know Bush's true motives in liberating Iraq (the basis for his criticism, apparently)? Is one of his degrees in psychic powers?
I certainly haven't read his book, and based on the little bit I've read here, I doubt I will. It's easy to critique a person if you impute certain beliefs and motives to a person... even if there's no proof that they are accurate. All Singer has done is create an elaborate strawmwn.
 
crackmonkey said:
All Singer has done is create an elaborate strawmwn.
Maybe, but it's a strawman that synchs all too well with my impressions of W.

Singer may or may not be a wingnut; I don't care. I do care that the US has been led into an optional war by a man who seems blinded by idealogy, a man who does not act as if thoughful analysis is part of his repertoire, a man who is seemingly formulating US foriegn policy based on fundamentalist belief in biblical mythology.
 
varwoche said:
Maybe, but it's a strawman that synchs all too well with my impressions of W.
And that is the problem. A straw man that synchs with your impressions is another way of saying specious.

Singer may or may not be a wingnut; I don't care. I do care that the US has been led into an optional war by a man who seems blinded by idealogy, a man who does not act as if thoughful analysis is part of his repertoire, a man who is seemingly formulating US foriegn policy based on fundamentalist belief in biblical mythology.
Like I said, the validity of the argument is of no import as long as they prove your assumptions. "Seemingly"? Nice.
 
RandFan said:
Like I said, the validity of the argument is of no import as long as they prove your assumptions. "Seemingly"? Nice.
Glad you seemingly liked it! ;)

Come on Randfan, clearly my commentary is highly speculative and subjective. Now maybe if Bush would agree to undergo some aptitude testing / psychological evaluation in my basement lab (picture Young Frankenstein) I'll be able to weigh in with substantial evidence.
 
varwoche said:

Glad you seemingly liked it! ;)

Come on Randfan, clearly my commentary is highly speculative and subjective. Now maybe if Bush would agree to undergo some aptitude testing / psychological evaluation in my basement lab (picture Young Frankenstein) I'll be able to weigh in with substantial evidence.
You are right. Just another knee jerk reaction on my part. To be fair you did say "seemingly" which I questioned and in fact was to your credit.

I think I'll step down from my soap box today. Carry on. :)
 
Singer has written the book from a philosophers perspective and has examined whether or not Bush has been consistent in his thinking and his arguments for war:

"my book asks whether his statements about human life, and his willingness to go to war in Iraq are actually consistent, or is it evidence of muddled thinking?".

That his criticisms may mesh with peoples preconceptions doesn't therefore mean they are worthless.


Anyway his opinion hasn't meshed with my preconceptions, since he doesnt "go so far as to say that Mr Bush is stupid"....
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom