Posted on 04/19/2017 4:26:19 PM PDT by Morgana
FULL TITLE: Peter Singer: Sexually Assaulting Mentally Disabled People Isn’t That Bad Because They Can’t Comprehend It
We say it often: ideas have consequences; bad ideas have victims. And a certain, consistent Princeton bioethicist continues to show just how true that is.
How do we know what’s right? Great minds have wrestled with that question for much of history. Is it doing our duty regardless of the consequences? Is it doing whatever a virtuous person would do? Is it doing what brings the most happiness to the most people?
That last option—the greatest good for the greatest number—is the basic premise behind an ethical theory called “utilitarianism,” whose main champion today is Princeton Professor Peter Singer. In his book, “Practical Ethics,” he presses this logic to chilling, yet consistent, conclusions, arguing, for example, that killing babies who are born disabled is not only acceptable, but may be morally necessary.
Why? Singer believes the happiness of able-bodied persons trumps the rights of those with disabilities. Such beliefs are horrifying enough in the classroom, but they rarely stay there.
Enter Rutgers ethicist Anna Stubblefield, who, in 2015, was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to twelve years in prison. Her victim, a thirty-year-old man with cerebral palsy, identified as “D.J.,” has never spoken a word in his life, and is dependent on caregivers for his basic needs.
Using a controversial technique known as “facilitated communication,” Stubblefield claims she helped D.J. break his lifelong silence by supporting his hands as he typed on a keyboard. Eventually, D.J.’s family came to believe he had the mental capacity of an adult, and even enrolled him in college courses.
Then Stubblefield made an announcement to D.J.’s family that changed everything: “We’re in love.” Believing she had received D.J.’s consent via facilitated communication, the married Stubblefield consummated a romantic relationship with this disabled man. A New Jersey jury decided that the act constituted sexual assault.
In response, in a recent op-ed at the New York Times, Peter Singer and Jeff McMahan argue that Stubblefield’s 12-year sentence is too harsh and that D.J. was capable of more communication than the judge or jury give him credit for. But their next argument is truly horrifying.
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures.
“If we assume,” they write, “that he is profoundly cognitively impaired, we should concede that he cannot understand the normal significance of sexual relations between persons or the meaning and significance of sexual violation. In that case, he is incapable of giving or withholding informed consent…”
They go on to claim that D.J. probably enjoyed the experience, so it wasn’t that monstrous of a crime. In other words, because those with profound disabilities can’t fully comprehend what’s happening, assaulting them isn’t the same as assaulting a person in possession of full mental faculties.
Now, let me be clear: This reasoning is fully consistent with Singer’s utilitarian ethics, which teaches that net happiness—not objective concepts like human rights, dignity, or duty—is the standard of right and wrong. And this story shows why ideas like this are so much more than academic debates.
Utilitarian reasoning justifies all numbers of atrocities, from experimenting on prisoners in order to advance medicine, to harvesting vulnerable people’s organs to help others. In fact, this logic has been used to justify eugenics and forced sterilization, and is used today to defend abortion and euthanasia.
In contrast, Christianity teaches the intrinsic and equal value of every human person, regardless of physical or mental abilities. This idea, rooted in the image of God, means that a man with disabilities who’s never spoken a word is no less valuable than a university professor like Singer. And crimes against him are no less reprehensible.
Again, ideas matter. They have consequences. And bad ideas have victims. That’s why I care about this whole worldview thing, and that’s why we’ve got to speak out against the moral reasoning of thinkers like Singer. Because the ones who will pay the highest price often can’t speak for themselves.
Kids, animals, retarded people..is there *anything* he won’t hump??
A healthy woman near his own age.
This caused observers to wonder who was behind the communications. The conclusion was that the facilitator subconsciously made stuff up but did not realize it was coming from the subconscious, similar to automatic writing or a widgie board. also, there were cases of kids who suddenly could write elaborate sentences with correct spelling, even though they had not been taught to read or spell
.. several parents were jailed after the facilitator helped the kid quickly spell out elaborate descriptions of physical or sexual abuse, despite the fact that there was no physical evidence.
there are a lot of ways to help these kids communicate, including boards, computers, and sign language.
He's said that gorillas and monkeys have self-awareness, so they are superior to human infants and toddlers.
So he has said it's OK to kill a human child, but that an ape has "rights" that need to be respected.
YES, he has said that.
He's a vegetarian, too, because animals are so much more important than children.
This dude would make a fantastic Nazi
And I say that in the literal sense.
This guy is pure evil.
Then he is a human-hating hypocrite.
Livestock animals do not have self-awareness. Neither do most common pets, such as cats and dogs. But he holds their lives as more important than human lives? Morally and ethically, that argument holds no water, because infants who have no sense of self-awareness are on a trajectory of brain development that will lead to that sense. Animals, on the other hand, will never develop that sense. As cute, intelligent, and lovable Fido or Fluffy is, they do not have the capacity to develop self-awareness. Few animals do.
If he were consistent, he would be okay with the slaughter of livestock for food. If he thinks it acceptable to kill a 2 year old child (who will continue to develop neurologically for the next 2+ decades), then he must certainly think that it is acceptable to kill a cow for food, since that cow is far less developed intellectually than the child he would happily kill.
Ol’ Pete is really one piece of work.
When was the last time that guy got any action? /sarc>
...other than his own hands? /not sarc>
He’d screw them if he could avoid being torn apart.
Hmmm, given Singer’s criteria then we can sexually assault any liberal we find without consequence.
Some people just need a karmic curb stomping. Peter Singer is one of them.
Well none of us can comprehend why a sicko would want to sexually assault anyone, let alone assaulting a mentally challenged person. But it’s wrong in every describable way and in all the indescribable ways, it’s evil and worse...
No he would object to human sex with farm animals. The point is who cares what crazy homos think.
We should put him in a room with Eric Clanton and tell them the keys to their shackles are somewhere in the other person’s body and they only have 24hr of air.
Gee, I wonder what two ethics professors would decide to do?
Is this “consistent” ethicist Singer possibly telling us a thing or two about himself, in a veiled way?
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.