... and the difference would be?
Posted on 08/20/2014 6:55:16 AM PDT by wagglebee
You are right that if you don’t believe in God, Singer’s ideas are perfectly logical. If we aren’t special — we are just other animals — then it is in the best interest of society to get rid of people who are likely to be net negatives on society as a whole. Sure, you don’t make that judgment lightly because someone with a disability may have other talents, but otherwise, life is another utility judgment. The logical implication is that atheist humanists are just weak and emotion-driven. There is no reason for society to protect children or the elderly if there is no social utility to it so people who want to do so are just being driven by illogical emotional attachment and an guilt.
This is what the Godless don’t want to face — the idea that if there is no God, Peter Singer’s ideas — killing handicapped children, killing the elderly, killing prisoners, killing other members of society who clearly aren’t net producers — have merit.
You’re mixing up terms. “Abomination”, presuming translated from Hebrew to’ebah, always involves conscious decision; presuming genetic predilection is a liberal ruse to take the guilt out of it.
How about we exercise this option for professors?
Yes he is. He does not value life.
Amen.
Until you see the finger prints of divinity on “the least” of us, it’s just going to be a nightmare.
... and the difference would be?
Thank you!
Just scanned it. I’m going to get back to it later to read in detail.
Very, very interesting.
By the looks of it Singer himself will soon come face to face with the truth.
Universities are supposed to advance the culture, but they are, in fact degrading it. This insanity will not stop until the taxpayers and alumni severely cut funding. No one should give money to a university that employs the likes of Singer.
I did not know that. Well, that makes it even worse.
What a way to honor your kin.
And keep in mind that this will also include those who have religious or political beliefs that the powers that be deem unacceptable.
Singer's beliefs hinge not only on the denial of God, but also on the absurd notion that a person BECOMES a human as part of their development and by the same theory can lose their human nature at some point or never become human at all. This thinking has been at the core of the left's death mongering for over a century: they will agree that it's wrong to kill a human being, but they believe they have the right to define a person as a non-human.
And how many “conservatives” secretly agree?
Lol! Ain't that the truth!
These people are insane.
Exhibit A, ladies and gentlemen.
I don't think that any real conservatives agree.
However, I think that a great many libertarians agree with Singer's entire agenda.
hm... might be an idea I could get behind!
“Peter Singer is pure evil”
Actually, if you subscribe to secular humanism, as a larger number of people in this country do, he is imminently logical. Any notion of the value of human life beyond utility to the society as a whole is preposterous.
YES!
Actually, the idea of non-Theists having any moral or ethical system whatsoever is preposterous.
And how many “conservatives” secretly agree?
I don't think that any real conservatives agree.
Better check the comments again, bub.
All this is what comes from making economics the core of conservatism instead of G-d and morality.
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.