What makes this idiot any less EVIL than the bastard who had the 2.3 million price on his head?
Posted on 08/16/2012 1:40:14 PM PDT by Morgana
This is utilitarian ethics. He has taken this sort of stance for some time now. You don’t necessarily have a right to life unless meet certain criteria some of which can be met by the higher species of animals. He is consistent in his arguments but is consistently wrong.
Mr. Singer does not realize that he is going to die - not once, but twice.
I strongly suspect that if I held a gun to Mr. Singer’s head and was about to splatter his gray matter against the nearest wall because his views made ME and most other reasonable persons UNhappy, that he would be whistling a different tune about his utilitarian “ethics”.
Mr Singer’s views make a lot of people unhappy. Therefore, we should remove him and his ideas from this planet in order to increase happiness. What a truly evil person.
stealing lines from old Charles Bronson movies?
#1 it sounds like the ravings of some fringe group of European neo-fascists or Communists,
is perhaps the most acclaimed and respected ethical philosopher alive,
#2toasted by liberal academic and political elites around the world.
DUH #1 and #2 are the same!
Didn’t this monster become a czar for Ubama?
If I did it was by accident. Don’t watch Charles Bronson movies, am into Chuck Norris.
I think about that line of argument too when I hear certain smug academics and "intellectuals" assert that "usefulness" is the only criteria for being allowed to live. Well then, if I put a gun to the academic's noggin and threatened to end his life because I found a group of people who agreed he was worthless, do you think the academic might rethink his position? Based on usefulness, liberal arts academics are about the most useless people around.
If more pro-aborts would quit lying to themselves and admit this, people would overwhelmingly be pro-life. Very few would subscribe to his extreme utilitarian philosophy.
Then, Mr. Singer, I assume that it is OK if we kill you!
Mr. Singer is a Nazi and/or attention whore.
I wouldn’t give him another second’s notice, except, as others have pointed out, he’s the inevitable end point of every leftist dogma, regime, and logical argument.
The leftists think their goal is like the Star Trek universe, when it always ends up being the 7th level of Hell.
Ethics in it's nuance meaning is the teaching of right and wrong in the absense of God. This in reality degenerates to no more than lawyers lecturing corporate policy and the law, which is man made and subject to mob rule. So called “ethics” is by its very nature brings about outcomes that are hedonisticly motivated, situational dependent, and logically inconsistent, unlike morals that take a dentological approach and tend to actually be more consistent. If there is such a thing as truth, ethics will not bring you there, morals will.
While we don't call it as such, ethics as taught today in higher education, corporate America and government is born out of the realization of a need for ground rules governing behavior beyond simply what the law states. It is the teaching of right and wrong in a secular multicultural society where religion has been displaced in every facet it use to fill. The government runs the schools and hospitals, a bad behaviorist psychologist coaches couples to a failed marriage or talks about grief albeit offering no answers, and the ethicist talks about right and wrong vs. the pastor or priest. The field of ethics and all these sharlatons are no more than another secular component in this society that has replaced what religion use to do.
” perhaps the most acclaimed and respected ethical philosopher alive,”
By some perhaps, but not by me!
Statements about not having the ‘right’ to life are completely contrary to the U.S. Bill of Rights. And it makes me think that he is not thinking very clearly at all. Because if his statement is true, then he himself can qualify for a post natal abortion albeit many years later than what he was thinking.
People who think like Singer are devoid of emotions, sympathy, or compassion and lack the ability to appreciate their emotional surroundings, so they should be aborted.
This is also the guy who said it should be legal for people to have sex with animals, as long as the animals are consenting.
I beleive he also believes children have a right to have sex with adults. This guy is one sicko as well a a sociopath.
Sociopathy is chiefly characterized by something wrong with the person’s conscience. They either don’t have one, it’s full of holes like Swiss cheese, or they are somehow able to completely neutralize or negate any sense of conscience or future time perspective. Sociopaths only care about fulfilling their own needs and desires - selfishness and egocentricity to the extreme. Everything and everybody else is mentally twisted around in their minds as objects to be used in fulfilling their own needs and desires. They often believe they are doing something good for society, or at least nothing that bad. The term “sociopath” is frequently used by psychologists and sociologists alike in referring to persons whose unsocialized character is due primarily to parental failures (usually fatherlessness) rather than an inherent feature of temperament. Lykken (1995), for example, clearly distinguishes between the sociopath (who is socialized into becoming a psychopath) and a “true” psychopath (who is born that way).
OK, who volunteers to test his theory by threatening to kill this bastard, bring him to his knees and make him pee pee in his pants?
IMO psychology is the battering ram constantly weakening those foundations as it hammers relentlessly against them.
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.