The Troubling Beliefs of an "Influential" Atheist

[Nogbad]

To be fair, Singer is apparently saying that it's okay to kill the first child and harvest his parts, not merely conceive him in order to provide "spare" parts.

His viewpoint is apparently that a newborn, having no concept of time, and thus no fear of death or plans for the future, will "lose" less by dying than the more mature child he's being sacrificed to save. I can't really agree that that's a moral viewpoint, though I understand it intellectually. If you "let" the older child die, and give birth to another child, the result is equivalent -- one child lives, one dies. I can even understand how a parent might make that decision -- they have their own memories of the older child, and have bonded, while the newborn is still a bit of a black box. It still just doesn't seem right to me, and I don't think there's much chance of a "Singer century" in which such things become acceptable.

I would agree that to kill one to save another is rather pointless as you are still one child down. The real life example I gave had some people bent out of shape but they did end up one child up on the deal.

I can't see parents having children to harvest organs as a likely scenario in any century. I can see organs being grown but that is a different matter. His answers to the other questions seemed fair - he wasn't advocating the acts merely pointing out that in themselves they were merely odd rather than morally wrong. I can't see the big deal about such an answer.

 

[Gregory]

"For example, when I asked him {Singer} last month about necrophilia (what if two people make an agreement that whoever lives longest can have sexual relations with the corpse of the person who dies first?), he said, "There's no moral problem with that."

Does this trouble you? It isn't troubling to me. I mean, I think it's nasty, but there are many things I think are nasty that I don't find morally wrong.

Concerning bestiality (should people have sex with animals, seen as willing participants?), he responded, "I would ask, 'What's holding you back from a more fulfilling relationship?' [but] it's not wrong inherently in a moral sense."

Animals can't give any sort of intelligent consent, so they can't really be willing participants. But I suppose if you were thrown into a magical fairyland with talking animals, there'd be no moral problem with having (consensual) sex with one.

If the 21st century becomes a Singer century, we will also see legal infanticide of born children who are ill or who have ill older siblings in need of their body parts. Question: What about parents conceiving and giving birth to a child specifically to kill him, take his organs, and transplant them into their ill older children? Mr. Singer: "It's difficult to warm to parents who can take such a detached view, [but] they're not doing something really wrong in itself." Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale? "No."

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/9987

Singer was recently a professor at Princeton. He still might be there but I'm not sure.

I find his views in this matter to be somewhat too extreme for me, although I haven't actually read them first-hand. Maybe I'd find them convincing if I did. Maybe not.

Also do you believe Peter Singer's beliefs and criminality go together.

Do you, DOC, have any evidence that people who are influenced by Singer are more likely to be criminals? I mean, actual evidence? Prison statistics, maybe? If you do, you should present it. But you don't, do you? So, since there's absolutely no evidence that Singer is linked with criminality, why would you even bring it up?

 

[joobz]

Safe Keeper, you have a very nice summary of the situtation. It's that there are so many multiple levels of wrong that is involved in DOC's presentation of Singer as unsaid argument that it makes it meaningless to attempt any critique until he is willing to more clearly state his case.

1.) Does DOC group beastiality with Homosexuality with euthanasia?
2.) Does DOC recognize Singer's utalitarian view has nothing to do with atheism, just like humanism has nothing to do with atheism?
3.) In particular, what aspects of Singer's quotes does he take exception to? In the case I presented, does he dislike singer's claim that beastiality isn't inherently immoral or that Singer finds the greater moral question being What's holding the person back from a more fulfilling relationship?
4.) How long do the lists of bad/good atheists, bad/good christians do we need to prove either case?

 

[Nogbad]

Safe Keeper, you have a very nice summary of the situtation. It's that there are so many multiple levels of wrong that is involved in DOC's presentation of Singer as unsaid argument that it makes it meaningless to attempt any critique until he is willing to more clearly state his case.

1.) Does DOC group beastiality with Homosexuality with euthanasia?
2.) Does DOC recognize Singer's utalitarian view has nothing to do with atheism, just like humanism has nothing to do with atheism?
3.) In particular, what aspects of Singer's quotes does he take exception to? In the case I presented, does he dislike singer's claim that beastiality isn't inherently immoral or that Singer finds the greater moral question being What's holding the person back from a more fulfilling relationship?
4.) How long do the lists of bad/good atheists, bad/good christians do we need to prove either case?

I think, from the arguments I have seen presented on these forums by one or two theists, that I can assume that all bad atheists are true atheists (good atheists are pretend atheists who just haven't realised that they are theists yet) whereas all bad Christians are not real Christians (prolly atheists in disguise).

Does that seem fair?

 

[bokonon]

I would agree that to kill one to save another is rather pointless as you are still one child down. The real life example I gave had some people bent out of shape but they did end up one child up on the deal.

I can't see parents having children to harvest organs as a likely scenario in any century. I can see organs being grown but that is a different matter.

An influential man of the Bible -- Abraham -- advocated killing and burning his own child because he heard voices. Many passages in the Bible (with just as much influence among Christians as Singer has among atheists) advocate killing every man, woman, child, goat, and chicken among those one vanquishes, and says that children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren should be punished for the acts of the father.

On balance, I'd say that Singer has the moral high ground.

His answers to the other questions seemed fair - he wasn't advocating the acts merely pointing out that in themselves they were merely odd rather than morally wrong. I can't see the big deal about such an answer.

Nor can I. In the other thread, DOC was presenting this as though Singer was the spokesperson for the National Atheistic Man-Beast Love Association. As usual, the facts are refracted quite a bit by the prism of fundamentalism.

 

[fuelair]

Here is some info about an atheistic professor named Peter Singer who Time Magazine called one of the 100 Most Influential People in the World in 2005, and a New Yorker Magazine article described as the "most influential" philosopher alive.

Here are some of the troubling beliefs of this influential atheistic professor.

From the World Magazine article "Same-sex marriage? Euthanasia? Child's play issues in the avant-garde philosophy of Peter Singer" Marvin Olasky

"For example, when I asked him {Singer} last month about necrophilia (what if two people make an agreement that whoever lives longest can have sexual relations with the corpse of the person who dies first?), he said, "There's no moral problem with that." Concerning bestiality (should people have sex with animals, seen as willing participants?), he responded, "I would ask, 'What's holding you back from a more fulfilling relationship?' [but] it's not wrong inherently in a moral sense."

If the 21st century becomes a Singer century, we will also see legal infanticide of born children who are ill or who have ill older siblings in need of their body parts. Question: What about parents conceiving and giving birth to a child specifically to kill him, take his organs, and transplant them into their ill older children? Mr. Singer: "It's difficult to warm to parents who can take such a detached view, [but] they're not doing something really wrong in itself." Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale? "No."

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/9987

Singer was recently a professor at Princeton. He still might be there but I'm not sure.

Life. Get one. Now!!!!!

 

[joobz]

I think, from the arguments I have seen presented on these forums by one or two theists, that I can assume that all bad atheists are true atheists (good atheists are pretend atheists who just haven't realised that they are theists yet) whereas all bad Christians are not real Christians (prolly atheists in disguise).

Does that seem fair?

And that seems about it.
really, this thread should be over with the indictments, appeal to authority and True Scottsman.

I simply hope that DOC attemptsa better a argument than this.

 

[JoeEllison]

And that seems about it.
really, this thread should be over with the indictments, appeal to authority and True Scottsman.

I simply hope that DOC attempts a better argument than this.

Has he ever attempted ANY decent argument? Ever?

 

[plumjam]

1.) Does DOC group beastiality with Homosexuality with euthanasia?

You've never been to one of his parties, have you.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Yawn... another one of DOC's "atheists are evil" threads. More strawmen arguments, more guilt by association, more homophobia, more taking atheists out of context.

DOC, if your purpose is to convert us from our non-belief in your imaginary, celestial tyrant, then you're not convincing us.

However, your actions and beliefs have convinced me that you're beneath all contempt.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

sufferin' succotash!

Wrong character!

 

[joobz]

Wrong character!

http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Humor/Cats/Sylvester.jpg

D'oh!

 

[Ladewig]

You've never been to one of his parties, have you.

I usually don't like your posts, but that was the funniest thing I've read this year.

 

[plumjam]

I usually don't like your posts, but that was the funniest thing I've read this year.

cheers

 

[Mister Agenda]

I was going to Godwinize this thread, but plumjam's humor has convinced me it is not yet time.

 

[DOC]

Posted by DOC

Concerning bestiality (should people have sex with animals, seen as willing participants?), he {Peter Singer} responded, "I would ask, 'What's holding you back from a more fulfilling relationship?' [but] it's not wrong inherently in a moral sense."

what do you find objectionable about the above statement?

Besides the 3 verses in the bible that condemn it (2 with the death penalty), I'll just say my inner voice tells me its wrong and also not in my best interest. Also it could conceivably cause an obsession or addiction in the animal.

___

It sounds like you have no objection with his statement.

 

[DOC]

Funny, he has no influence on anyone here. So, what possible purpose does your obsession with him serve? Or, is it that you have an obsession with bestiality, and this gives you an excuse to talk about your secret heart's desire?

I've voiced my opinion about bestiality in the above post. What's yours?

 

[fuelair]

Posted by DOC

Concerning bestiality (should people have sex with animals, seen as willing participants?), he {Peter Singer} responded, "I would ask, 'What's holding you back from a more fulfilling relationship?' [but] it's not wrong inherently in a moral sense."




Besides the 3 verses in the bible that condemn it (2 with the death penalty), I'll just say my inner voice tells me its wrong and also not in my best interest. Also it could conceivably cause an obsession or addiction in the animal.

___

It sounds like you have no objection with his statement.

You think a chicken or cow would become obsessed with you if.......? A handful of corn and it's all forgotten.

 

[joobz]

Posted by DOC

Concerning bestiality (should people have sex with animals, seen as willing participants?), he {Peter Singer} responded, "I would ask, 'What's holding you back from a more fulfilling relationship?' [but] it's not wrong inherently in a moral sense."




Besides the 3 verses in the bible that condemn it (2 with the death penalty), I'll just say my inner voice tells me its wrong and also not in my best interest. Also it could conceivably cause an obsession or addiction in the arelinimal.

___

It sounds like you have no objection with his statement.

There are two parts to the statement.
1.) He says: "it's not wrong inherently in a moral sense."
2.) He says: "'What's holding you back from a more fulfilling relationship?"

I disagree with point 1. There are non-religious reasons to find beastiality immoral.

However, his point 2 has more important moral implications. It seems that you may be missing his real message that is built into his argument.

Your response makes it clear that you did not actually read his reply and simply wish to argue the strawman that can easily be made.

 

[hgc]

Besides the 3 verses in the bible that condemn it (2 with the death penalty), I'll just say my inner voice tells me its wrong and also not in my best interest. Also it could conceivably cause an obsession or addiction in the animal.

This post is forum gold.

Do the verses in the bible that condemn the wearing of garments made from flax (i.e. linen) and wool inform your moral judgements about fiber mixes?

I would be careful about inner voices -- could be psychotic hallucinations or delusions. There is no inner voice. There is no little man inside your head talking to you, giving you moral guidance. Not that you can't find beastiality morally reprehensible even though Peter Singer doesn't. That should be your thoughtful conclusion, and not the instructions of invisible ghosts in the machine.

If an animal becomes inappropriately obsessed, it can always be slaughtered for its meat and pelt. I doubt you'd find that morally troublesome -- if you eat meat or wear leather.

In conclusion - If Peter Singer, or any other influential person, famous for being an atheist or merely circumstantially an atheist, advocates the most despicable things imaginable, it still doesn't magically poof gods into existence.

Oh, another note on Peter Singer - When I was at the University of Colorado many years ago, I signed up for a Philosophy class on Social Ethics. The professor, who was quite famous, but I had never heard of, was a visiting prof from Monash Univ in Melbourne. Name: Peter Singer. He was a tough teacher.