NationStates Jolt Archive

First, before my rant, I'd like to apologize for my words I said that got me a 3-day forum ban about 7 or 8 days ago.

Now, onto the rant.

A Princeton University professor by name of Peter Singer came to my hometown of Omaha, Nebraska yesterday.(By the way, way to go Huskers for winning their first CWS game!) He gave a speech on his beliefs and such. In his speech, he approved of the automatic killing of mentally retarded children, elderly folks, and people in a persistant vegitative state, and the usual liberal belief for abortion. No liberal I have heard of is that pro-choice. This man sickens me. I am against abortion, euthanasia, the death-penalty, and mercy-killing, and this man is for it all. Do any of you have children that are mentally handicapped? If so, this man would support the murder of your children as soon as possible! Anyone with relatives in a nursing home? Well, if this man gets his way, you best say your last good-byes to them. This man isn't liberal, this man is not pro-choice. This man is pro-death, and is a threat to all people with disablities around the world.

Discuss.

Oh, and bump.

bump. I'd like to debate with someone please.

Peter Singer is indeed one of the most extreme left wing philosophers out there. But regardless of your personal views as a world renowned bio-ethicist his views are not to be considered lightly.

I just finished a book of his which was very well argued and he openly discussed every opposing perspective in fair detail.

Peter Singer is indeed one of the most extreme left wing philosophers out there. But regardless of your personal views as a world renowned bio-ethicist his views are not to be considered lightly.

I just finished a book of his which was very well argued and he openly discussed every opposing perspective in fair detail.
We must finish this tomorrow. I have to go to bed.

Well, in order to call it pro-choice you would have to say that retarded people are the same as fetuses. A fetus is not yet a human, so you must say that people who are reatarded are not real people at all. That is madness.

And how is it pro-choice if the killing is automatic?

There's a fine line between what is human and what is not. A fetus or someone in a vegetative state are still alive in that bodily functions are operational, but they are not concious. They are not living in the sense we use it as. A retarded person or an elderly person however, is just as alive as you or me.

I don't think you're going to get much of a debate, nobody is going to come out and say they support death of the elderly and retarded (although some do).

I bet once he gets old and weary he'll think twice about his views on killing the elderly.

This man must neither have a heart nor a soul.

This man isn't liberal, this man is not pro-choice. This man is pro-death, and is a threat to all people with disablities around the world.

Discuss.

actually, he's a utilitarian, and he is only ok with infanticide and mercy killings and the like when they are the utilitarian option. but he has never argued that we ought to engage in such acts, only that they would be morally acceptable. he would certainly never argue that anyone should be automatically killed, unless something has changed drastically with him. got a transcript?

I don't think you're going to get much of a debate, nobody is going to come out and say they support death of the elderly and retarded (although some do).

peter singer certainly doesn't.

check out his faq:
http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html

Hmmm.. last time I heard (and if I recall correctly) Singer:
- supported the termination of handicapped life before it began through abortion. Not because he thinks that already living handicapped people have no rights, but because he thinks it is the right thing to do to prevent a person from becoming handicapped (he does not consider an embryo a person).
- considers the ending of suffering more important than forcing people to live on a life they themselves consider pointless.
- argues that one must look at the actual harm done; and that a requirement to be able to ascertain harm is having a normal condition to compare the new one with. This reasoning leads to the conclusion that potiential persons (like embryos) or persons that know no difference between life and death cannot be harmed.

He also had logical but extremely contra-intuitive reasoning behind every thing he said. Care to share that reasoning and point at the flaws (I'll help if i can - but only if i consider them flaws of course)?
Do note I might be confusing him with someone else. Apologies if that is the case.

One thing you have to keep in mind with Singer is that mostly he says what he does for the sake of starting an argument.

For instance, He once said some things about bestiality, along the lines of 'why is it bad?'

The fact is, what he says he may not agree with, and he largely aims at increaasing debate.

Also, why is it so bad to kill those whose quality of life is small?
If somebody is in pain, give me a reason they shouldn't want, or be given, death.

You cannot say : because death is bad, and life is good.

For instance, He once said some things about bestiality, along the lines of 'why is it bad?'

Which actually is a very good question, since being against it could imply you think animals have rights. Which means you must morally justify other things that seem to conflict with those rights, like bio-industry, sealclubbing, meat eating and so on for yourself (unless you are a veganist by choice, PETA member etc in which case you state it cannot be justified). Many people have never bothered to think this through and just declare things as if they were dogma.

The fact is, what he says he may not agree with, and he largely aims at increaasing debate.

/me is in favour of that.

You cannot say : because death is bad, and life is good.
Actually you can - if you are religious and believe in a soul or similar. Why you would have the right to impose that view on someone who doesn't share it and thinks he alone can choose what to do with his life (including ending it) is another question.

I love Peter Singer. He asks the life-questions that I think most intellectuals shy away from. He has the courage to have a standpoint and to support that standpoint with arguments. He's not very PC. He's brutally honest.

I believe in the sanctity of life. I believe that we as humans don't have the right to make irreversible decisions, like taking another person's life, because we haven't the ability to give that life back. Peter Singer has rather extreme views on life and death, but he is a true intellectual artist for the way he challenges moderate views. Even if you don't agree with him, you have to respect his willingness to be public with his arguments.

First, before my rant, I'd like to apologize for my words I said that got me a 3-day forum ban about 7 or 8 days ago.

Now, onto the rant.

A Princeton University professor by name of Peter Singer came to my hometown of Omaha, Nebraska yesterday.(By the way, way to go Huskers for winning their first CWS game!) He gave a speech on his beliefs and such. In his speech, he approved of the automatic killing of mentally retarded children, elderly folks, and people in a persistant vegitative state, and the usual liberal belief for abortion. No liberal I have heard of is that pro-choice. This man sickens me. I am against abortion, euthanasia, the death-penalty, and mercy-killing, and this man is for it all. Do any of you have children that are mentally handicapped? If so, this man would support the murder of your children as soon as possible! Anyone with relatives in a nursing home? Well, if this man gets his way, you best say your last good-byes to them. This man isn't liberal, this man is not pro-choice. This man is pro-death, and is a threat to all people with disablities around the world.

Discuss.
I completely disapprove of euthanising physically healthy human beings, and mentally retarded children definitely fall under that category. Euthanising the terminally ill is a bit iffy for me... I'm not sure which of the two choices is worse, but killing a child because it is different from "normal" children is just wrong.

Did anyone else get a chuckle out of this?


Now, onto the rant.

Oh, and bump.

bump. I'd like to debate with someone please.

A reply!

We must finish this tomorrow. I have to go to bed.

I don't know why, but that exchange really made me laugh.

Anyway, as to the topic at hand ... Peter Singer. I think some things may have been taken a little out of context. Nobody - with the possible exception of serial killers and mass murderers - probably actually believes in outright killing ... even in those circumstances. Even with the "liberal view" on abortion, you will generally find that most liberals are pro-choice, but anti-abortion. We may not like it, but we're not going to rid a woman of their right to choose.

I am not so much pro- "death of the elderly or defective" so much as I am just plain pro-death. The human population has exceeded the limits of natural selection. The stupid are no longer killed off naturally, keeping our gene pool improving. In fact, usually the stupid breed much, much more than the intelligent. We are setting ourselves up for a genetic meltdown, causing a dark age where all technology dies off until we are back to the early stuff, whereupon we hopefully start over our path to a perfect intelligence. So that we may achieve the highest state of intellect possible before this happens, I am therefore pro-death. Anything that kills people, preferably lots of them and if at all possible more stupid ones than smart ones, I am solidly in favor of. War is an excellent example. As is liquor.

I am not so much pro- "death of the elderly or defective" so much as I am just plain pro-death. The human population has exceeded the limits of natural selection. The stupid are no longer killed off naturally, keeping our gene pool improving. In fact, usually the stupid breed much, much more than the intelligent. We are setting ourselves up for a genetic meltdown, causing a dark age where all technology dies off until we are back to the early stuff, whereupon we hopefully start over our path to a perfect intelligence. So that we may achieve the highest state of intellect possible before this happens, I am therefore pro-death. Anything that kills people, preferably lots of them and if at all possible more stupid ones than smart ones, I am solidly in favor of. War is an excellent example. As is liquor. Disabled does not equal stupid (I'm not saying you said this, but it's nonetheless untrue) - look at Stephen Hawking for example.

Judging peoples' quality of life for them before they are born is breathtakingly arrogant… what kind of disability would make them unworthy of life? This is when currently a jaw defect correctable at five months is a "serious disability" - sorry, I forgot what country that was in. What right do we have to consider someone's life not worth living? (Barring extremes - I'm talking about "normal" disabilities here)

Peter Singer only supports euthenasia when there is an assurance of no quality of life. I remember once saying that a certain mentally crippled child must live, simply because the child's eye moved.

As he points out, we put so much effort saving so few lives in the west, but we spend so little effort saving the many lives in the third world. Peter Singer has done huge amounts for third world countries, spending huge amounts building firms to provide jobs for the very poorest so children can eat. An African life only costs a dollar a day.

For instance, He once said some things about bestiality, along the lines of 'why is it bad?'
Sex with anyone or anything that can't/won't/doesn't consent is "bad."

From a purely economic standpoint he's completly correct. He's cutting all the suposed "dead wood". Basically what he's saying is "anyone who can't work or support themselves, the doors that way". Streamlining the economy so to speak.
Personally I think the person who started this thread is just a tad biasd against this guy. I mean with a title of "Peter Singer: A man who supports death" I was shocked when they said they didn't like him *insert sarcastic smiley here*
Also I'm not sure he's talking about all old and retarded people, that again is just an assumption by the starter of this thread.

Peter Singer only supports euthenasia when there is an assurance of no quality of life. I remember once saying that a certain mentally crippled child must live, simply because the child's eye moved.

As he points out, we put so much effort saving so few lives in the west, but we spend so little effort saving the many lives in the third world. Peter Singer has done huge amounts for third world countries, spending huge amounts building firms to provide jobs for the very poorest so children can eat. An African life only costs a dollar a day.

Is this guy an economist because again economically thats the best route as third world countries could generate more than a few people in the west.
Think about it the western nations spen loads of money saving a few people when a third of the planet is in poverty, so tell me again who supports death.

Does this guy Singer support death by not helping few or does America, the UK and other western nations support death by not giving the help the third world needs?

Good morning all.

Peter Singer we can all agree is an extreme on the left side of the political spectrum. The majority of people would disagree with him. Yet, I have to admit, even though I despise his beliefs, he is a damn good speaker from what I've heard.

It seems when I reply, no one replies back, lol.

It seems when I reply, no one replies back, lol.
you see you could always reply to people who have already commented

you see you could always reply to people who have already commented
True.

This Singer chap is not pro-choice, the views stated as belong to him are eugenics.

This Singer chap is not pro-choice, the views stated as belong to him are eugenics.
I feel embarassed for asking but I'm only 13 and I don't know what "eugenics" means. Could you define it?

I bet once he gets old and weary he'll think twice about his views on killing the elderly.

This man must neither have a heart nor a soul.

Amen.

so are we going to talk about singer's actual positions and the arguments behind them or not?

so are we going to talk about singer's actual positions and the arguments behind them or not?
Could you then point out his actual positions?

First, before my rant, I'd like to apologize for my words I said that got me a 3-day forum ban about 7 or 8 days ago.

Now, onto the rant.

A Princeton University professor by name of Peter Singer came to my hometown of Omaha, Nebraska yesterday.(By the way, way to go Huskers for winning their first CWS game!) He gave a speech on his beliefs and such. In his speech, he approved of the automatic killing of mentally retarded children, elderly folks, and people in a persistant vegitative state, and the usual liberal belief for abortion. No liberal I have heard of is that pro-choice. This man sickens me. I am against abortion, euthanasia, the death-penalty, and mercy-killing, and this man is for it all. Do any of you have children that are mentally handicapped? If so, this man would support the murder of your children as soon as possible! Anyone with relatives in a nursing home? Well, if this man gets his way, you best say your last good-byes to them. This man isn't liberal, this man is not pro-choice. This man is pro-death, and is a threat to all people with disablities around the world.

Discuss.

thins singer guy sounds like an asshole if you ask me..

thins singer guy sounds like an asshole if you ask me..
I agree.

I'm thinking of doing a different person after each of these threads are pretty much dead. However, they'll be of the opposite side of the political spectrum:

Up next: Michael Savage.

Could you then point out his actual positions?
well I have but you haven't responded
so have others

well I have but you haven't responded
so have others
I shall read such then.

so are we going to talk about singer's actual positions and the arguments behind them or not?

Agreed. It seems people prefer instant reaction to the considered debate of an issue.

A summary of Peter Singer and definitions of all those tricky words such as 'eugenics' can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

I see, its true that he doesn't encourage the engagement in such. Still, I disagree with the fact that he agrees with you if you say, "I want to do that."

Agreed. It seems people prefer instant reaction to the considered debate of an issue.

A summary of Peter Singer and definitions of all those tricky words such as 'eugenics' can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
I see, eugenics is selection by quality, genetic experimentation and extermination. Sounds like a very dark branch of science.

peter singer certainly doesn't.

check out his faq:
http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html

Oh, evil evil liberal!I agree with almost every word in the above link. As a matter of fact, I've caught more than a little flack for saying infanticide, while not good, is not as bad as killing a twelve year old. Just because of the awareness factor.

I would rescue a human over a mouse. Though it certainly is speceism (sp?)
and a human is not more inherently valuable than a mouse, I , like most higher animals, tend to value individuals of my own species over others. It doesn't make humans inherently more valuable, just a personal preference.

I see, eugenics is selection by quality, genetic experimentation and extermination. Sounds like a very dark branch of science.
It's pseudo-science. The same stuff that genocide is made of.

Peter Singer has some very interesting points, and his arguments are for the most part merely instated to point out inconsistencies in current political and philosophical culture towards man-man and man-animal relations. One problem with this kind of argumentation is that critics often lift out certain parts and let them stand out "by themselves", without context. History has teached us that this (the kind of criticism I like to call "argumentative mob-justice in the style of Python's 'The life of Brian') is a dangerous practice. Starter of this thread has proven that.

PS Although I must say that, as a historian, I find Singer's explanation on certain historical processes far from accurate. I'm therefore writing a thesis right now to correct that :cool:

I feel embarassed for asking but I'm only 13 and I don't know what "eugenics" means. Could you define it? "Eugenics" is the practise of killing/sterilising/forbidding to breed those who are deemed "unworthy" to pass on their genes, in order to breed undesirable elements out of the genepool.

"Eugenics" is the practise of killing/sterilising/forbidding to breed those who are deemed "unworthy" to pass on their genes, in order to breed undesirable elements out of the genepool.
Thank you for pointing that out. I forgot to mention it.

To Druidvale, the moral philosophies this man argues for, even if he doesn't encourage them, is also dangerous.

Is this guy an economist because again economically thats the best route as third world countries could generate more than a few people in the west.
Think about it the western nations spen loads of money saving a few people when a third of the planet is in poverty, so tell me again who supports death.

Does this guy Singer support death by not helping few or does America, the UK and other western nations support death by not giving the help the third world needs?

Singer describes himself as a utilitarian, a belief in the greatest good for the greatest number; those being the people living in the third world.

Oh, evil evil liberal!I agree with almost every word in the above link. As a matter of fact, I've caught more than a little flack for saying infanticide, while not good, is not as bad as killing a twelve year old. Just because of the awareness factor.

I would rescue a human over a mouse. Though it certainly is speceism (sp?)
and a human is not more inherently valuable than a mouse, I , like most higher animals, tend to value individuals of my own species over others. It doesn't make humans inherently more valuable, just a personal preference.

I concer.

He does, for the most part, seem spot on. I'm not so cool on the animal sex views though.

I haven't read a lot of Singer's work, however, I don't think I've read anything he has said that I disagree with.

For those people who have read even less of his stuff than I, I'll attempt to sum up his ethical position on everything.

Ouchies are bad. :)

To Druidvale, the moral philosophies this man argues for, even if he doesn't encourage them, is also dangerous.

Why ? He points out that some of the currently dominant morals and "moral intuition" in western society are inconsistent, in some cases hypocritical and have no real supporting basis. While that of course is not nice to hear, sticking your head in the sand will not invalidate his arguments.

The things he proposes, especially where animal rights are concerned, would indeed have a huge impact on society. But so did the abolishing of slavery and the equal rights for women - and I daresay those changes were improvements.

So.. list the things he says you disagree with, complete with his and your arguments, and we can have a very nice and intruiging debate :)

Ouchies are bad. :)
LOL - well said :)