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.
Same dude that thinks that babies that are a few weeks out of the womb are fair game.
By that logic... He must think that sexually assaulting animals is just fine and dandy too, like the Taliban....
....and its not a very big step to murdering your unborn children because they cant either and besides, it would just ruin your summer figure.
Of all the things you can say against Andrew Dice Clay...
Peter Singer is too elderly to have much value when parted out, so he might as well just off himself in the name of net happiness.
By this reasoning, you could molest a two year old as long as it wasn’t physically uncomfortable for the child.
I like playing devil’s advocate as much as anyone but Singer does it more literally than he knows.
What does he have to say on necrophilia?
Maybe send him to Gitmo as a boy toy for Islamic terrorists. Seems like his morals should fit right in with Islam.
"Brimstone and Treacle"
Peter Singer is a so-called moral philosopher who is world renowned. He is an evil man. I had an ethics class that studied one of his books. As I recall, he postulated that children up to the age of self awareness (2-3-4) have no more rights or value than many animals. Furthermore, he advocated that parents should have the right to terminate (kill) their children up to the age of self-awareness because in his view, they are no more valuable than many animals.
Yes, the liberal, amoral, agnostic mind loves to push the envelope to ever greater vain and evil imaginations. With many parallels to Singer's moral code, Hitler justified killing useless eaters and those he considered "impure" and "sub-human".
Ain't godlessness fun!! (sarc)
Princeton Professor Peter Singer holds multiple honorariums from the prestigious Satanical College of Demons.
A Phd. in Prevarications, as well as many multiple Masters degrees in Satanic Studies, Damnation Philosophies, and his self proclaimed specialty of expertise, Beelzebubotology... GRRR!
If it makes more people happy than unhappy, then yes.
Doing horrible things to Singer will make him sad and bring sadness to those who know and like him (as well as some others, of course), but as long as there are sufficient numbers of people who would be pleased that this sicko was assaulted, then he’d have to agree that it’s the right thing to do.
The guy needs to be institutionalized.
Then there can’t be anything wrong with a mentally disturbed person assaulting, sexually or otherwise, someone else.
I wonder how he feels about animal lives.
Self-awareness is hardly a criterion that unequivocally separates those that should live from those that should not. The vast majority of animals have no self-awareness. They are sapient; they are capable of feeling the range of emotions and sensations like cold, heat, hunger, pain, etc. But if you show them a mirror they will not recognize the image in the mirror as themselves; hence, they have no self-awareness. Elephants have self-awareness, as do higher primates.
This is why I wonder what Singer's feelings on killing animals are. If he insists that animals be granted the rights of humans, while claiming that very young children have no such rights, then he is a giant hypocrite. If he insists that it is okay to kill animals for whatever reason because they do not have self-awareness, then he is at least consistent--evil and lacking a sense of conscience, but consistent.
Obviously, since he’s retarded.
Yes, if you give him knockout drops first so he doesn’t know what your doing. Think of all those dentists and doctors, not to mention guys having their way with passed out women, that will be set free.
WE ARE DOOMED!
Is that his current girlfriend?
From Break Point’s John Stonestreet:::::::::
http://www.breakpoint.org/2017/04/breakpoint-peter-singer-defends-abuse/
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.
“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.
Further Reading and Information
Peter Singer Defends Abuse: Setting Up the Victims of Bad Ideas
Utilitarianism devalues the human person and poses a real danger to the very young, the very old, and people with disabilities. But the Christian worldview holds that all are created in God’s image and therefore of infinite value. As John said, ideas matter. It’s crucial that believers speak up for those who have no voice.
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.