“Peter Singer is pure evil”
Actually, if you subscribe to secular humanism, as a larger number of people in this country do, he is imminently logical. Any notion of the value of human life beyond utility to the society as a whole is preposterous.
You are right that if you don’t believe in God, Singer’s ideas are perfectly logical. If we aren’t special — we are just other animals — then it is in the best interest of society to get rid of people who are likely to be net negatives on society as a whole. Sure, you don’t make that judgment lightly because someone with a disability may have other talents, but otherwise, life is another utility judgment. The logical implication is that atheist humanists are just weak and emotion-driven. There is no reason for society to protect children or the elderly if there is no social utility to it so people who want to do so are just being driven by illogical emotional attachment and an guilt.
This is what the Godless don’t want to face — the idea that if there is no God, Peter Singer’s ideas — killing handicapped children, killing the elderly, killing prisoners, killing other members of society who clearly aren’t net producers — have merit.
“Peter Singer is pure evil”
Actually, if you subscribe to secular humanism, as a larger number of people in this country do, he is imminently logical. Any notion of the value of human life beyond utility to the society as a whole is preposterous.
YES!
Actually, the idea of non-Theists having any moral or ethical system whatsoever is preposterous.