Replies

Singer distances himself from Benatar’s conclusions, however, and says, “I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe.”

Nevertheless, he said that for the human race to continue justifying reproducing itself over the next two centuries, individuals should ask themselves the hard questions of, “Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?”

Mr. Sanger references, "It would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe", yet for him to make pronouncements of wrong/(or right ) he must define moral properties. Moral properties are metaphysical in character, yet Sanger denies the metaphysical, even as he declares himself to be arbitor of what is wrong or right. He does this with his own metaphysical personal mind. Without transendence of God there can be no moral properties instantiated, and certainly there can not, in the naturalist/materialists worldview, be moral obligations derived from a brute, materialist universe.

For Sanger to even ask, 'Is life worth living?' is ridiculous in Sangers worldview. The question demands a standard of values which the materialist, evolutionst cannot possibly account for. Yet, we are to contemplate this question based upon a man of letters who chairs an ethics pannel at Princeton, who cannot even account for his own sentience. But he asks us to consider destroying billions of lives.

He asks us to consider 'reason' when we consider the future interests of a child brought into this world, all the while unable to account for the metaphysical nature of reason itself. In fact, Sanger must deny reason and logic since he cannot account for them in the universe made of only matter and wave energy. Yet, he has slithered from beneath the rocks of the intelligencia to such a capstone as a bioethics chairman. I would tell him of this irony, but he cannot account for irony either.

And perhaps worse, Sanger feigns piteous concerns for anyone even as he advocates killing children up to 24 months of age (postpartum) because he declares their lack of self-awareness. How to the hell does he know that? He was once 24 months of age, but by his own admission he does not know of any self awareness. That type of hubris knows no boundaries. He wants us all to hold him high because his questions are supposed to indicate he is the smartest person in the room. And we, caught in a moment of mind-boggleing disbelief, stutter and stammer at even the notion that a person might contrive such hideousness.

Someone on this thread said, "You first, Mr.Sanger." I concur.