Professor Peter Singer: Kill infants and those with disabilities

[loco]

Where is our world headed?  This goes beyond abortion.  I believe in freedom of speech, but this guy, professor Peter Singer, is teaching our future leaders at Princeton University.  He is a professor of ethics and the Chairman of the Ethics Department at Princeton.  Look at what he is saying:

''I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being,''

''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.''

"we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."

“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”

"During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260

http://www.utilitarian.guy/by/1993----.htm

American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html

Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp

Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm

[OzmO]

Where is our world headed?  This goes beyond abortion.  I believe in freedom of speech, but this guy, professor Peter Singer, is teaching our future leaders at Princeton University.  He is a professor of ethics and the Chairman of the Ethics Department at Princeton.  Look at what he is saying:

''I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being,''

''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.''

"we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."

“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”

"During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments."

WOW.

And he's on the chairman fo the ethics department?

Princeton should make him resign.

This goes right up their with what some accuse of religion of.

[tonymctones]

did you guys ever take ethics in college, ethics can be looked at from multiple angles and his view points fall in line with some...I bet his classes are interesting as shit and have some crazy debates in them i would love to take his class. I can actually see this statement

"During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments."

coming true although maybe not in the next 35 yrs but at somepoint down the road with demographic trends heading down the road they are on.

[loco]

did you guys ever take ethics in college, ethics can be looked at from multiple angles and his view points fall in line with some...I bet his classes are interesting as shit and have some crazy debates in them i would love to take his class. I can actually see this statementcoming true although maybe not in the next 35 yrs but at somepoint down the road with demographic trends heading down the road they are on.

I'd hate to be disabled in 35 years.  I'd have to hide from society to keep my life.

[tonymctones]

I'd hate to be disabled in 35 years.  I'd have to hide from society to keep my life.

LOL i was referring more to life in general probably birth control and abortion, if the worlds demographics go the way they are going then life will begin to lose its value due to the competition for resources and when resources hit a limit it could become cut throat and the value on human life especially the life of an unborn child who will have to be cared for and not contribute for many years could be looked at as a disadvantage.

[Dos Equis]

Where is our world headed?  This goes beyond abortion.  I believe in freedom of speech, but this guy, professor Peter Singer, is teaching our future leaders at Princeton University.  He is a professor of ethics and the Chairman of the Ethics Department at Princeton.  Look at what he is saying:

''I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being,''

''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.''

"we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."

“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”

"During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260

http://www.utilitarian.guy/by/1993----.htm

American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html

Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp

Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm

   Chair of the ethics department??  They need to take his teacher card away immediately. 

[tonymctones]

  Chair of the ethics department??  They need to take his teacher card away immediately. 

LOL OMG again did you ppl take ethics in college? just b/c something seems wrong to you doesnt mean its universally wrong. Ethics is LOGIC not morals from the bible, morals derived from LOGIC. You ppl need to go take a ethics class it might open your minds to some stuff

[loco]

LOL OMG again did you ppl take ethics in college? just b/c something seems wrong to you doesnt mean its universally wrong. Ethics is LOGIC not morals from the bible, morals derived from LOGIC. You ppl need to go take a ethics class it might open your minds to some stuff

I took ethics in college over 10 years ago, but I never heard stuff like this in that class.  The only time I heard stuff like this was in world history, Nazism.

If professor Singer's ideas are harmless, then why did Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position? 

Why did Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal so strongly criticize him? 

Why did Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, so strongly criticize Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty?

[tonymctones]

I took ethics in college over 10 years ago, but I never heard stuff like this in that class.  The only time I heard stuff like this was in world history, Nazism.

If professor Singer's ideas are harmless, then why did Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position? 

Why did Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal so strongly criticize him? 

Why did Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, so strongly criticize Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty?

well you they must have not taught the course the same as they do these days. My ethics professor didnt teach things like this but you can see how some of the views and theories in ethics could lead to this type of thinking. I never said his ideas where harmless especially in a world where ethics are derived from religion his ideas are certainly going to offend some ppl but that doesnt mean he is wrong look at it from a non religious stand point and maybe you will get an idea of what i mean...

You disagree with abortion but why? more than likely b/c you are religious and the bible say you should not "murder" and this is fine for you as an individual to believe and to subscribe to but what gives you the right to tell a non religious person that they dont have the right to have an abortion?

[OzmO]

Tony,

How could you insinuate a man in his position that makes comments like that as harmless?

[loco]

well you they must have not taught the course the same as they do these days. My ethics professor didnt teach things like this but you can see how some of the views and theories in ethics could lead to this type of thinking. I never said his ideas where harmless especially in a world where ethics are derived from religion his ideas are certainly going to offend some ppl but that doesnt mean he is wrong look at it from a non religious stand point and maybe you will get an idea of what i mean...

You disagree with abortion but why? more than likely b/c you are religious and the bible say you should not "murder" and this is fine for you as an individual to believe and to subscribe to but what gives you the right to tell a non religious person that they dont have the right to have an abortion?

I don't want this to turn into another abortion thread.  Professor Singer is not talking about unborn babies alone.  He is talking about born infants, people with disabilities, cripples, elderly people with Alzheimer's decease, etc.  Pretty much all the stuff we already saw the Nazis do during WWII.  Someone teaching these ideas, in his position, is very dangerous.

[Dos Equis]

LOL OMG again did you ppl take ethics in college? just b/c something seems wrong to you doesnt mean its universally wrong. Ethics is LOGIC not morals from the bible, morals derived from LOGIC. You ppl need to go take a ethics class it might open your minds to some stuff

I completely disagree.  Ethics is about logic, common sense, the law, morality, black, white, and gray.

If this guy believes ''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person'' he should not be teaching kids about ethics.  I'm astounded that someone with that belief heads an ethics department at a reputable school.  Unbelievable.  
  

[tonymctones]

Tony,

How could you insinuate a man in his position that makes comments like that as harmless?\

Never said he was harmless but then again being anti abortion could be looked at as being harmful, everything in this world could be...Ever heard the idea that there is no selfless act, LOL hey i learned about this theory in guess what ETHICS CLASS!!!!!!! Just depends on your point of view much like the statements of this man.

[tonymctones]

I completely disagree.  Ethics is about logic, common sense, the law, morality, black, white, and gray.

If this guy believes ''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person'' he should not be teaching kids about ethics.  I'm astounded that someone with that belief heads an ethics department at a reputable school.  Unbelievable.  
  

Again beach you have to understand the point in which he is coming from, if you step on an acorn is it the same as cutting down a full grown tree? You should look up "A defense of abortion" i forget who its by some lady but i read it in my ethics class and it brings up good points. Yes beach ethics is about all those things but what you are ignoring is that different ppl have a different idea of these things. Canabalism would be considered wrong by the many ppl but does that make it wrong, NO it makes it wrong to you but universally whos to say its wrong or right? Again most ppl base their opinions off of Religon but what gives you the right to impose your religious beliefs on non religious ppl?

[tonymctones]

I don't want this to turn into another abortion thread.  Professor Singer is not talking about unborn babies alone.  He is talking about born infants, people with disabilities, cripples, elderly people with Alzheimer's decease, etc.  Pretty much all the stuff we already saw the Nazis do during WWII.  Someone teaching these ideas, in his position, is very dangerous.

sorry didnt see this post before i mentioned the abortion thing

[Dos Equis]

Again beach you have to understand the point in which he is coming from, if you step on an acorn is it the same as cutting down a full grown tree? You should look up "A defense of abortion" i forget who its by some lady but i read it in my ethics class and it brings up good points. Yes beach ethics is about all those things but what you are ignoring is that different ppl have a different idea of these things. Canabalism would be considered wrong by the many ppl but does that make it wrong, NO it makes it wrong to you but universally whos to say its wrong or right? Again most ppl base their opinions off of Religon but what gives you the right to impose your religious beliefs on non religious ppl?

 Tony a baby isn't a plant.  There really isn't any similarity between stepping on an acorn and killing a baby. 

Yes we all have different ideas, but there are some ideas that make their way into our books, become the law of the land, form part of our overall human decency, and are universally wrong.  It is fine to discuss differing viewpoints, but there are some things that are simply wrong.  Murder is wrong.  Abusing a child is wrong.  Killing disabled children is wrong.  It really doesn't matter if some people engage in this behavior.  Look at that Jeffs pedophile.  The fact he raped young girls and has a following who advocate and practice the rape of young girls doesn't legitimize his behavior. 

I didn't say anything about religion.  Some of our societal views on ethics are grounded on religion and some are not.  The "right" to impose views on people, regardless of where those views originated, comes from the voting process.  We put people in office and give them the authority to pass laws and we either follow those laws, break them and suffer the consequences, or change them.     

[loco]

sorry didnt see this post before i mentioned the abortion thing

No problem!  

[bears]

i dont necessarily think that Singer is that malicious of a guy.  i think what hes doing is exploring the direction we're headed with regards to our world's changing view on the sanctity of a human life.  he is exploring how we as a planet deal with ethical guidelines and how we stretch them as far as we can.  i think he knows that we are becoming a planet that can rationalize any behavior.  hes a smart man.  he knows that these horrible acts that he speaks of, given enough time, will be looked upon as something else completely.  i dont want to make this an abortion debate but just look at roe v wade as an example.  the law was put into place so we could help women who had been forcibly impregnated through rape or incest.  seems like a good law.  who could really have a problem with it?  Now that same law allows about 2 million abortions per year and only about .01% of those abortions are from a women being raped.  we have been given an inch and taken that inch and stretched it a mile.  i think he recognizes this and is discussing it.  hes not making these rules.  he is just observing our behavior once we are given these rules.

[loco]

"Singer's mother suffers from severe Alzheimer's disease, and so she no longer qualifies as a person by his own standards, yet he spends considerable sums on her care. This apparent contradiction of his principles has not gone unnoticed by the media. When I asked him about it during our interview at his Manhattan apartment in late July, he sighed and explained that he is not the only person who is involved in making decisions about his mother (he has a sister). He did say that if he were solely responsible, his mother might not be alive today." (Singer's mother died shortly thereafter.)
http://guy-slippery-mind.html

When Singer's mother became too ill to live alone, Singer and
his sister hired a team of home health-care aides to look after
her. &guy's mother has lost her ability to reason, to be a person,
as he defines the term[/b].  So I asked him how a man who has written
that we ought to do what is morally right without regard to proximity
or family relationships could possibly spend tens of thousands
of dollars a year on private care for his mother.  He replied that
it was "probably not the best use you could make of my money.
That is true.  But it does provide employment for a number of people
who find something worthwhile in what they're doing.''

  This is a noble sentiment, but it hardly fits with Peter Singer's
rules for living an ethical life.  He once told me that he has no
respect for people who donate funds for research on breast
cancer or heart disease in the hope that it might indirectly save
them or members of their family from illness, since they could
be using that money to save the lives of the poor.  ("That
is not charity,'' he said.  "It's self- interest.")
http://www.michaelspecter.com/ny/1999/1999_09_06_philosopher.html

[donrhummy]

I completely disagree.  Ethics is about logic, common sense, the law, morality, black, white, and gray.

If this guys believes ''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person'' he should not be teaching kids about ethics.  I'm astounded that someone with that belief heads an ethics department at a reputable school.  Unbelievable.  
  

not quite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Ethics is a major branch of philosophy, encompassing right conduct and good life. It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is simply satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than moral conduct.

[tonymctones]

Tony a baby isn't a plant.  There really isn't any similarity between stepping on an acorn and killing a baby. 

Yes we all have different ideas, but there are some ideas that make their way into our books, become the law of the land, form part of our overall human decency, and are universally wrong.  It is fine to discuss differing viewpoints, but there are some things that are simply wrong.  Murder is wrong.  Abusing a child is wrong.  Killing disabled children is wrong.  It really doesn't matter if some people engage in this behavior.  Look at that Jeffs pedophile.  The fact he raped young girls and has a following who advocate and practice the rape of young girls doesn't legitimize his behavior. 

I didn't say anything about religion.  Some of our societal views on ethics are grounded on religion and some are not.  The "right" to impose views on people, regardless of where those views originated, comes from the voting process.  We put people in office and give them the authority to pass laws and we either follow those laws, break them and suffer the consequences, or change them.     

Its an analogy, an acorn will grow into a tree, a fetus or baby will grow into a person if a person is pro choice does it really suprise you that they might be pro infantcide as well? After all what is the logical cut off for these ppl on abortion?

Right but just b/c something you percieve is wrong doesnt make it universally wrong these days i person cant get married if they arent 18 not but a few decades ago it was common practice for teenagers to get married. Its all different points of views and different ways of looking at things. I agree with you that mudering ppl is wrong but if you look at if from the side that there is no wrong and right then you can understand why someone might think this way.

I can agree that in a society there are universal wrongs but the rules are put in place to help society so if killing infants and disabled ppl are beneficial to society those will become the rules. In general a person who is non religious and believes that we are just here by chance believes there is no higher meaning to right and wrong other than one is acceptable and one isnt socially so they are more apt to think like this all the time.

I seem to think you might have a problem with ppl imposing secular views on you even though they are the majority and are able to get legislation passed. Like you said just b/c many ppl follow this guy doesnt legitimize his actions, well just b/c the majority feels one way doesnt make that way right.

[Dos Equis]

not quite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Here is the Webster's definition:  "1. . . a system of moral principles. 2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics. 3. moral principles, as of an individual. 4 . . . that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions."

[Dos Equis]

Its an analogy, an acorn will grow into a tree, a fetus or baby will grow into a person if a person is pro choice does it really suprise you that they might be pro infantcide as well? After all what is the logical cut off for these ppl on abortion?

Right but just b/c something you percieve is wrong doesnt make it universally wrong these days i person cant get married if they arent 18 not but a few decades ago it was common practice for teenagers to get married. Its all different points of views and different ways of looking at things. I agree with you that mudering ppl is wrong but if you look at if from the side that there is no wrong and right then you can understand why someone might think this way.

I can agree that in a society there are universal wrongs, but in general a person who is non religious and believes that we are just here by chance believes there is no higher meaning to right and wrong other than one is acceptable and one isnt socially.

I seem to think you might have a problem with ppl imposing secular views on you even though they are the majority and are able to get legislation passed. Like you said just b/c many ppl follow this guy doesnt legitimize his actions, well just b/c the majority feels one way doesnt make that way right.

I understand your acorn analogy, but I don't think it works well because people > than plants.  I do agree that there isn't much of a logical leap from abortion to infanticide. 

I agree that my perceptions on right and wrong aren't necessarily universal, although the things I mentioned are considered wrong in pretty much every society.  There are always exceptions (for example "honor killings") but that behavior is still wrong.   
No I don't have a problem with "secular views."  Unless you live in something like a monastery, secular views are all over the place.  It actually sounds like you have a problem with "religious views" or religious-based views being part of the democratic process.  I believe in the process and that everyone has a right to have their views decided at the ballot box. 

I agree that just because the majority passes a law that the "law" isn’t necessarily right.  We pass bad laws all the time. 

[tonymctones]

I understand your acorn analogy, but I don't think it works well because people > than plants.  I do agree that there isn't much of a logical leap from abortion to infanticide. 

I agree that my perceptions on right and wrong aren't necessarily universal, although the things I mentioned are considered wrong in pretty much every society.  There are always exceptions (for example "honor killings") but that behavior is still wrong.   
No I don't have a problem with "secular views."  Unless you live in something like a monastery, secular views are all over the place.  It actually sounds like you have a problem with "religious views" or religious-based views being part of the democratic process.  I believe in the process and that everyone has a right to have their views decided at the ballot box. 

I agree that just because the majority passes a law that the "law" isn’t necessarily right.  We pass bad laws all the time. 

b/c you believe that God put us here and we are his children, but to a person who holds no religious views a humans life might not be any more important than tree or another humans for that matter. Even if every society thought something was wrong wouldnt make it universally wrong, again the honor killings are wrong to you but if the majority of society felt they where ok they would be acceptable.

I do have a problem with religious views when they are pushed on ppl for the sole purpose that they think they are right b/c the bible says so, again what right do they even if in the majority have to impose their religious beliefs on others. Im sure you would feel the same way I do if secular views where imposed upon religious ppl to the extent that it interferred with their beliefs.

[Dos Equis]

b/c you believe that God put us here and we are his children, but to a person who holds no religious views a humans life might not be any more important than tree or another humans for that matter. Even if every society thought something was wrong wouldnt make it universally wrong, again the honor killings are wrong to you but if the majority of society felt they where ok they would be acceptable.

I do have a problem with religious views when they are pushed on ppl for the sole purpose that they think they are right b/c the bible says so, again what right do they even if in the majority have to impose their religious beliefs on others. Im sure you would feel the same way I do if secular views where imposed upon religious ppl to the extent that it interferred with their beliefs.

Where did I say that?  My belief that people are more important than plants has nothing to do with religion. 

How do you define a universal wrong?  Seems like a practice that every society considers wrong should qualify. 

No, I don't feel the same way regarding religious versus secular viewpoints.  They should have an equal opportunity at the ballot box.  If you disagree with a certain viewpoint, go vote.  That's what I do.