Gunco Forums banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The most influential philosopher alive [Infanticide Advocate Peter Singer] ^ | Dec. 2, 2004 | Marvin Olasky

PRINCETON, N.J. -- Republicans are winning elections, but the long-term problem of the left dominance within academia remains. Consider, for example, the influence of Princeton professor Peter Singer.

Many readers may be saying, "Peter who?" -- but The New York Times, explaining how his views trickle down through media and academia to the general populace, noted that "No other living philosopher has had this kind of influence." The New England Journal of Medicine said he has had "more success in effecting changes in acceptable behavior" than any philosopher since Bertrand Russell. The New Yorker called him the "most influential" philosopher alive.

Don't expect Singer to be quoted heavily on the issue that roiled the Nov. 2 election, same-sex marriage. That for him is intellectual child's play, already logically decided, and it's time to move on to polyamory. While politicians debate the definition of marriage between two people, Singer argues that any kind of "fully consensual" sexual behavior involving two people or 200 is ethically fine.

For example, when I asked him recently 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? 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 anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale? "No."

When we had lunch after our initial interview and I read back his answers to him, he said he would be "concerned about a society where the role of some women was to breed children for that purpose," but he stood by his statements. He also reaffirmed that it would be ethically OK to kill 1-year-olds with physical or mental disabilities, although ideally the question of infanticide would be "raised as soon as possible after birth."

These proposals are biblically and historically monstrous, but Singer is a soft-spoken Princeton professor. Whittaker Chambers a half-century ago wrote that, "Man without God is a beast, and never more beastly than when he is most intelligent about his beastliness," but part of Singer's effectiveness in teaching "Practical Ethics" to Princeton undergraduates is that he does not come across personally as beastly.

C.S. Lewis 61 years ago wrote "That Hideous Strength," a novel with villainous materialists employed by N.I.C.E. (the National Institute of Coordinated Experiments). Their offices were to be in a building that "would make quite a noticeable addition to the skyline of New York." But Singer sits in an unostentatious office at Princeton's Center for Human Values, which is housed in a small and homey grayish-green building with a front yard that slopes down the street. The center even has a pastoral-sounding address: 5 Ivy Lane.

C.S. Lewis's N.I.C.E. leaders are totalitarian. They use media control and a police force to push opponents into submission. Singer says he's not totalitarian because he accepts debate and says that "people can draw the line anywhere." But, within Singerism, should they? He scorns attempts to set up standards of good and evil that go beyond utilitarianism, and hopes to convince people willingly to do it his way.

The challenge for conservatives during the next several decades will be not only to win elections, but to win the intellectual battles.

12,413 Posts
Sounds like he doesn't really make a stand for anyone thing except that everything is up for grabs.

I would have trouble sitting in the same room with someone who believes babies can be born for their parts. I wonder if some of these people have ever seen a child develop every day between 0-6 months? My little guy is 6 months 13 days old. He is crawling like a champ (early the Doc says) He sits up and handles toys with agility. Now that he is crawling he is following his mother around. If she leaves the room he goes after her. I told him to come to me last night from across the room and he did with a huge smile and when he got to me he sat up and raised both arms for me to pick hm up.

I could not imagine snuffing a life of a newborn having seen what I have with 2 kids. It's not really a religous thing for me, it's common sense. In my gut and brain I know it would be wrong to breed children. I mean what next? They find a gene that says one race tends to be evil more than another. Then that race should be exterminated?

I think Hitler tried something like that.

Committee's to tell you they will exterminate your child that had CP or other ailment?

Spooky stuff if you ask me.

Gunco Irregular
4,323 Posts
You are right Sang Run Hunter. Not much different than the morally bankrupt ideas of the Nazis that led to Euthanasia programs to kill retarded and disabled people including even the deaf. They even made a movie that was called " LIFE UNWORTHY OF LIFE". Niedernhart Mental Institute in Linz was where they experiemented with gassing these people and this road eventually led to the Holocaust.
1 - 4 of 4 Posts