On the cover of Peter Singer’s book Writings on an Ethical Life is written a comment by The New England Journal of Medicine: “Peter Singer has… more success in effecting changes in acceptable behaviour [than any professional philosopher since Bertrand Russell].”
Question One: Is Singer serious on the title ETHICAL LIFE?
Question Two: Really, New England, ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR?
I’ve been working today on my short paper about the consequence-based approach of ethics by Peter Singer. I cannot help but feel great disgust on his ideas. His support of killing newborn babies because they ‘cannot see themselves as beings who might or might not have a future, and so cannot have a desire to continue living’ is preposterous. It’s so ridiculously revolting I couldn’t believe that any sound, educated and civilized human being could even begin to look at such statement as worthy of defense or of slight consideration.
He also says:
A week-old baby is not a rational and self-conscious being, and there are many nonhuman animals whose rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel and so on, exceed that of a human baby a week or a month old.
What he’s basically saying is that the life of a full grown chicken or giraffe is more precious than that of a newborn baby. Don’t get me wrong, I love chickens and giraffes, but I will definitely save the life of a newborn child if I see him/her subjected to the same life-threatening situation as the chicken or giraffe. Human life is to be valued above any life on earth.
If Peter Singer’s mother decided to kill him after one week of his birth (perhaps because of his too much crying), I wouldn’t think Mr. Singer would like it. Where would he be now if that had happened?
Singer also claims that what matters most is an entity’s capacity to suffer. Would anyone actually support him in this claim? Would it be better to take care of a mouse caught in a mouse trap than to take care of a person who is in a coma because the latter cannot feel any pain anyway? Would you let a newborn child be eaten up by a full grown python because the child has no outlook in long-living and the python would suffer if it goes hungry?
Any sound philosopher out there who actually supports Singer? Pray that on the day that you might be in a state of comatose (or any similar condition), your family isn’t influenced by Singer’s ideas.
A human being, whether a fetus, a newborn baby or a full grown adult has a soul. At the moment of conception, God infuses into the human being life that could only come from Him. That’s why Human life is sacred. That’s why we should never kill humans. Never!
Question One: Is Singer serious on the title ETHICAL LIFE?
Question Two: Really, New England, ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR?
I’ve been working today on my short paper about the consequence-based approach of ethics by Peter Singer. I cannot help but feel great disgust on his ideas. His support of killing newborn babies because they ‘cannot see themselves as beings who might or might not have a future, and so cannot have a desire to continue living’ is preposterous. It’s so ridiculously revolting I couldn’t believe that any sound, educated and civilized human being could even begin to look at such statement as worthy of defense or of slight consideration.
He also says:
A week-old baby is not a rational and self-conscious being, and there are many nonhuman animals whose rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel and so on, exceed that of a human baby a week or a month old.
What he’s basically saying is that the life of a full grown chicken or giraffe is more precious than that of a newborn baby. Don’t get me wrong, I love chickens and giraffes, but I will definitely save the life of a newborn child if I see him/her subjected to the same life-threatening situation as the chicken or giraffe. Human life is to be valued above any life on earth.
If Peter Singer’s mother decided to kill him after one week of his birth (perhaps because of his too much crying), I wouldn’t think Mr. Singer would like it. Where would he be now if that had happened?
Singer also claims that what matters most is an entity’s capacity to suffer. Would anyone actually support him in this claim? Would it be better to take care of a mouse caught in a mouse trap than to take care of a person who is in a coma because the latter cannot feel any pain anyway? Would you let a newborn child be eaten up by a full grown python because the child has no outlook in long-living and the python would suffer if it goes hungry?
Any sound philosopher out there who actually supports Singer? Pray that on the day that you might be in a state of comatose (or any similar condition), your family isn’t influenced by Singer’s ideas.
A human being, whether a fetus, a newborn baby or a full grown adult has a soul. At the moment of conception, God infuses into the human being life that could only come from Him. That’s why Human life is sacred. That’s why we should never kill humans. Never!