Posted on 12/02/2005 6:21:53 PM PST by nickcarraway
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
I altered the title- only because the full title would not fit in its full form.
BTTT
Yeah, sure dude, there is no God. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
Looks like a duplicate of: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1532974/posts?page=59#59
Never heard of him.
You're lucky. He's a monster. He advocates killing children up to a certain age if the parents decide they don't want them. He also is a big advocate of bestiality.
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.
Wow. No one has ever predicted anything like that before. What an original thinker. Well, original for someone who's knowledge of history extends back all the way to 1978.
And I thought this bozo was a "professor of Philosophy." He seems to think he's the Oracle of Mercer County.
We'll see which collapses first: human nature, or Peter Singer.
Speaking of rumps, this guy is a classic!
He's a terrible, terrible man. He may be right, but this is an evil that must be fought.
The first good to come of it will be that someone will murder Singer.
+
I'll be 74 in 2040, if God should grant me so long a life.
If Singer is right, I hope I'm surrounded by know-nothing religious fundamentalists at that point.
This is the first I've heard of it. I thought it meant maximizing human happiness. Now it seems to mean anti-human; or defining one to be human only if a liberal says they are.
No wonder the NYT likes this guy.
The cute thing about secular fundamentalists like Singer is that they are always bleating about "Science" and then failing to defend their beliefs scientifically. Does he have data showing a marked decrease in the number of people who value life? Is the pro-life movement losing steam and influence?
For that matter, what objective basis does the NYT have for declaring Singer a great philosopher, as opposed, to, say, a driveling fool? Compared to the great philosophers of history, is anyone going to remember this guy in a hundred years? (If so, I predict it will be the same way they remember Neitzsche - as a precursor to Hitler.)
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.