Posted on 12/02/2005 2:41:36 PM PST by wagglebee
PRINCETON, December 2, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Infamous advocate of infanticide and the man often credited as the founder of the modern radical animal rights movement, Dr. Peter Singer, was featured in the National Post this week predicting that the traditional ethics of western civilization would shortly be abolished. Singer?s comments appeared first in the September/October edition of the journal Foreign Policy as a speculation on what cherished social institutions would still exist in 35 years.
Singer, a strict utilitarian and the man the New York Times called the ?greatest living philosopher,? says, ?By 2040, it may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct.?
The title, ?The Sanctity of Life,? can only be meant as ironic coming from a man who has made his fame advocating abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, infanticide up to thirty days after birth and euthanasia for the elderly and infirm.
Singer?s predictions, shocking as they may appear, are well on the way to fruition, however. With the advance of utilitarian philosophy at both ends of human life, first with abortion, then with cloning, IVF, and growing rates of infanticide, and then with the acceptance of euthanasia, Singer has merely given an approving nod to what is verifiably happening all over the world.
He predicts bluntly, ?During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments.?
What Singer refuses to acknowledge is that there is no unavoidable necessity for this collapse. In fact most of it is being forced on nations by activist judges, undemocratic government and other organization actions and ruthless elites, who have constantly distorted facts to suit their agendas.
Technology has been developing since the emergence of organized human culture. In all that time, however, it is not until our own epoch that the suicidal anti-human philosophy has been so broadly accepted. In no other time before the modern age, has it been seriously proposed that the development of technology must necessarily supercede the inherent value of human life.
Ironically, as the implementation of Singer?s philosophical imperatives of drastic population reduction, mass euthanasia programmes, abortion and infanticide advance, the logical outcome will be that only those ?know-nothing religious fundamentalists? he excoriates will survive the anti-human pogroms.
Read the full article:
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/200509--.htm
Must be all that clean living and FReepin!
I have a strong belief that Singer, when on his death bed, will suddenly be begging for God's forgiveness.
Why? Anyone so arrogant and certain as him is trying to hide his guilt.
The man is a psychotic, but then again the Romans did much the same thing with their children as well.
Not defending it at all, just pointing out who else did it.
Thats a good observation.
They are teaching the young adults now, that will be making the choices for them later. Old, tenured codgers just repeat themselves and have little prospect of generating additional knowledge in the future. hmmmmmmmm
Click on this:
I guess I'll have to side with the "know-nothing religious fundamentalists", then.
Utilitarianism was discredited in the 19th century.
He is truly disgusting, but correct (apart from his perjorative terms): We are coming to the day when society is utterly failing at its ability to inform people of morality; only through an intense, personal, religious spirituality was the Western value of human life asserted. The great deeds of Christian leaders established a reservoir of moral social expectations. When that resevoir runs dry, only those who look solely to God will keep lit the flickering flame of truth. And those such people, Sanger regards as "know-nothing religious fundamentalists."
*ahem* Singer.
I just wish Singer would be morally convicted of the evil of kingdomism and foreswear eating anything at all.
Utilitarianism lacks "first principles." Usefulness begs the question, "useful to what end?"
I don't dislike many people, but Peter Singer is certainly the exception. Elitist bastard, advocating the deaths of others. The world would be so much better off without him. He should realize this and pull his own plug...this evening, preferably.
I suspect you're right. I've toyed with the idea of finding some pseudo-scholarly Nazi tract and redacting it to remove 'Jew', 'race' and the like, and put in the corresponding terms in the lexicon of the postmodernist multicultural left and trying to do a Sokal with it. After the paper appeared, I'd publish the original and the fake side-by-side, thus completing a reductio ad Hitlerum of the early 21st century left.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Dead wood abounds, to be sure.
Why doesn't he just come out and say he wants the world to look like Logan's Run?
Has the term "utilitarian" been permanently hijacked by this movement? I will take it as Doublespeak, for the moment.
I am a 'utilitarian', but in the very spirit of the word, I am willing to discard the term and adopt a new label if that's what's required.
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.