Posted on 06/11/2010 9:28:12 AM PDT by ezfindit
Singer explains Benatar’s antinatalist philosophy, which bases its moral framework by weighing the consequences of existence, in this way: “everyone will suffer to some extent, and if our species continues to reproduce, we can be sure that some future children will suffer severely. Hence continued reproduction will harm some children severely, and benefit none.”
Singer then invites readers to engage in a thought experiment: "So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!"
(Excerpt) Read more at orthodoxytoday.org ...
Further evidence Peter Singer is insane and so is Princeton University for hiring him. Indeed, Princeton may be even more insane that Peter Singer — who, after all, had his obscene immoral record out there for all to see. Singer is just being Satan’s spawn, his mission in life. Princeton, knowing that, chose to hire him, which then raises serious doubts about their sanity.
His students are so lucky.
Let’s see him go to Pakistan and preach that drivel.
The Liberal Left has a pathological hated of children.
My first thought was...liberals first.
Nevertheless, he said that for the human race to continue justifying reproducing itself over the next two centuries, individuals should ask themselves the hard questions of, “Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?”
Mr. Sanger references, "It would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe", yet for him to make pronouncements of wrong/(or right ) he must define moral properties. Moral properties are metaphysical in character, yet Sanger denies the metaphysical, even as he declares himself to be arbitor of what is wrong or right. He does this with his own metaphysical personal mind. Without transendence of God there can be no moral properties instantiated, and certainly there can not, in the naturalist/materialists worldview, be moral obligations derived from a brute, materialist universe.
For Sanger to even ask, 'Is life worth living?' is ridiculous in Sangers worldview. The question demands a standard of values which the materialist, evolutionst cannot possibly account for. Yet, we are to contemplate this question based upon a man of letters who chairs an ethics pannel at Princeton, who cannot even account for his own sentience. But he asks us to consider destroying billions of lives.
He asks us to consider 'reason' when we consider the future interests of a child brought into this world, all the while unable to account for the metaphysical nature of reason itself. In fact, Sanger must deny reason and logic since he cannot account for them in the universe made of only matter and wave energy. Yet, he has slithered from beneath the rocks of the intelligencia to such a capstone as a bioethics chairman. I would tell him of this irony, but he cannot account for irony either.
And perhaps worse, Sanger feigns piteous concerns for anyone even as he advocates killing children up to 24 months of age (postpartum) because he declares their lack of self-awareness. How to the hell does he know that? He was once 24 months of age, but by his own admission he does not know of any self awareness. That type of hubris knows no boundaries. He wants us all to hold him high because his questions are supposed to indicate he is the smartest person in the room. And we, caught in a moment of mind-boggleing disbelief, stutter and stammer at even the notion that a person might contrive such hideousness.
Someone on this thread said, "You first, Mr.Sanger." I concur.
Dear Mr. Singer,
Get a real job. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Greg
out of the mouth of satan-—
We should just sterlize the libtards. Cities would shrink and we would have more space for more shooting ranges and have more habitat for game and fish.
I’ve got a better idea.
““Singer then invites readers to engage in a thought experiment: “So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required...””
Why don’t the left just turn themselves into Soylent Green and help feed the hungered masses in third world countries. It would be win-win-win.
They're the ones proposing all this nonsense, so that goes without saying.
I get the impression Princeton might just keep him around as an example to students of how far to the extreme philosophy can take one.
Why is Peter still with us?
Yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.