10 ideas on the way out By 2040..

From: Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu Dec 15 2005 - 11:49:38 EST

This is for those who have evidenced admiration for Peter Singer, and
for those who haven't the first clue about what he advocates.

ideas on the way out By 2040, many things we take for granted will no
longer exist
Dallas Morning News ^ | http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1529375/posts

The sanctity of life

By Peter Singer

During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of
human life will collapse under pressure from scientific,
technological and demographic developments. By 2040, it may be that
only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists will
defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct.

(Excerpt)

Peter Singer advocates killing babies up to a year old, if they have
any physical defects. He also advocates the practice of bestiality.

In the old days, he would have been considered a Nazi. He still
resembles a Nazi, regardless of the approval he currently receives
from the deluded left.

Princeton University gave him a distinguished chair. That doesn't say
much for Princeton.

posted on 11/27/2005 2:01:28 PM EST by
(Marcus Tullius)

"Singer is a utilitarian. For utilitarians, the moral task is to
create utility -- to increase the amount of happiness in the world,
or at least decrease the amount of pain. If curing cancer requires
doing research that requires the death of ten infants, then the
infants should be sacrificed for the cause. After Princeton hired
him in 1999, a graduate wrote to the Princeton Alumni Weekly,
"Nothing I have seen or heard epitomizes the decline of Western
civilization so much as the hiring of Peter Singer." Singer is one
of the few thinkers, like Darwin and Freud, who within their own
lifetimes have changed the way people think. ....it's preferences,
rather than human life, that we ought to value... if we have rights
only insofar as we have preferences, then what about those humans,
like the severely retarded, who lack preferences? What about newborn
infants, who prefer to eat, excrete, and avoid pain, but prefer
little else? This brings us to Singer's second startling conclusion:
doctors and parents should be permitted in some circumstances to kill
humans. We ought, Singer writes, to replace the old dictum that all
human life has equal worth with a First New Commandment: Recognize
that the worth of human life varies. ..I asked him whether he would
extend the "cutoff" for euthanasia to, say, three years old, an age
when children still have rather few preferences. "A three-year-old is
a gray case," he said. .. Many philosophers, like Brown's Dan Brock
and Tufts's Norman Daniels, agree in good part with Singer. The
philosopher James Rachels made many of Singer's points before he did.
And Bentham got there before everybody, even on seemingly modern
issues like animal rights. "As a theoretical contributor, he's not
the most philosophically significant," says Shelly Kagan of Yale, who
often agrees with Singer. "But he moves the reader, shows the reader
what's already inherent in the reader's own beliefs. .."

Interesting item:

Peter Singer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Received on Thu Dec 15 11:51:31 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 15 2005 - 11:51:31 EST