Peter Singer's motivations for his philosophy

[ribozyme]

I have recently got a copy of* Practical Ethics *from a library, and from reading it, I would say that some of Singer’s views might be wrong. But I would like to point out that he really wants to alleivate suffering in the world. He sincerely believes in this. I don’t think Peter Singer should be viewed as some ogre, but he honestly wants humanity to be happy; he has good intentions, regardless of whether his views are wrong.

Well, regarding the topic, I found this website:

humanevents.com/article.php?id=7942

First, the past: Although Singer would like to think that his conclusions are the result of pure intellectual labor, his family history is worth noting. He and President Bush were born on the same day, July 6, 1946. But Singer did not have a future president as a dad and a U.S. senator as a grandfather: Both his grandfathers (as well as one grandmother) had recently died in Nazi concentration camps.

The grandmother who survived observed Jewish dietary laws before the war, but in 1946 said she would no longer do so, because, “If God allows such a good man as my husband to die, I don’t have to follow His laws.”

Singer told me that he grew up “very aware of the Holocaust,” learning from his parents and his parents’ friends, and was “impressed early on with my grandmother’s argument: How could there be a God who would let the Holocaust happen?”

This is what is called theodicy, the problem of evil, and smart people have thought it through for centuries, with some coming to atheistic conclusions and others coming to a belief in a God who is smarter than even the smart. Singer chose atheism and developed an evident pride in his ability to reason out every matter.

When I noted to him that some of the most intelligent English-speaking philosophers of the 20th century have been adult converts to Christianity, and that other highly intelligent people as well have come to believe that the Bible is God’s Word, he stated that “an intelligent person could not come at (that understanding) based on impartial critical analysis. People might have psychological needs.”

This explains Peter Singer’s atheism, and from reading that, one should sympathetic to him because of his history. He is like myself because we do not find Christianity palatable to the problem of evil.

Any commentary?

 

[KathleenElsie]

There is an old old saying. “The road to HELL is paved with good intentions”.

I don’t know the condition of his soul. No one should judge as to this matter. It is for God alone to know. But, the old saying has proven to be a good pointer for whom to use as an example for people that are children in Christ.

 

[djrakowski]

When I noted to him that some of the most intelligent English-speaking philosophers of the 20th century have been adult converts to Christianity, and that other highly intelligent people as well have come to believe that the Bible is God’s Word, he stated that “an intelligent person could not come at (that understanding) based on impartial critical analysis. People might have psychological needs.”

Does that mean that Singer believes that Christians are psychologically messed-up idiots? And, if so, does ribozyme agree with him?

In his subjective philosophy, we could easily call him the idiot, and he would have no rational basis to object.

 

[Dai_Yoshida]

Ribozyme:

Someone I know very well was physically, verbally and sexually abused as a child. The experience destroyed him emotionally.

He searched for meaning in his tortured life and found it in philosophy. Marcus Aurelius and Seneca became his friends. From Stoic masters, he moved on to Friedrich Nietzsche’s existentialism. He strived to overcome himself and his childhood by becoming the higher man.

After several years, he stopped. He was exhausted. He found solice in Buddhism. Goddess Tara nursed him back to health. He stepped back and pondered his life. His father who caused his suffering was now old, senile and living under his roof.

He cared for his father until the end. His father never thanked him.

He later married. God gave him 3 beautiful children. Goddess Tara became transformed in his heart into Mary, the mother of God. Mary pointed him to her Son. He became happy.

If he had become a molester or a killer, would you be sympathetic?

If he had thrown his aging father out into the street, would he have been happier?

Does atheism solve the problems of evil?

What do you think.

 

[ribozyme]

Ribozyme:

Someone I know very well was physically, verbally and sexually abused as a child. The experience destroyed him emotionally.

He searched for meaning in his tortured life and found it in philosophy. Marcus Aurelius and Seneca became his friends. From Stoic masters, he moved on to Friedrich Nietzsche’s existentialism. He strived to overcome himself and his childhood by becoming the higher man.

After several years, he stopped. He was exhausted. He found solice in Buddhism. Goddess Tara nursed him back to health. He stepped back and pondered his life. His father who caused his suffering was now old, senile and living under his roof.

He cared for his father until the end. His father never thanked him.

He later married. God gave him 3 beautiful children. Goddess Tara became transformed in his heart into Mary, the mother of God. Mary pointed him to her Son. He became happy.

If he had become a molester or a killer, would you be sympathetic?

If he had thrown his aging father out into the street, would he have been happier?

Does atheism solve the problems of evil?

What do you think.

Interesting, but a superficial look at your profile compels me to ask is that your story?

 

[deb1]

Personally, I don’t hate Peter Singer but understanding the motivations for his philiosphy doesn’t make me agree or have sympathy for his beliefs.

I should also point out that it isn’t his atheism that disturbs me. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t Singer believe in Infantacide? How did someone whose family suffered through the Holocaust end up believing in something similar to the Nazis?

It is interesting to know his background, though, especially considering that he has something in common with my husband. My husband’s family lost a great many of their family members in the Holocaust.

 

[Dai_Yoshida]

Interesting, but a superficial look at your profile compels me to ask is that your story?

Does it matter?

Your response?

 

[Veritas41]

He doesn’t get my sympathy at all. Many Jews survived the Holocaust with their faith intact and did not go on to promote evil philosophies of life. Ironically, Peter Singer’s views are right in line with those of the Nazis – he presumes to have the authority to arbitrarily determine who should live and who should die (the latest I’ve read about him is that he thinks it should be legal to kill a newborn child up to 2 months of age). Peter Singer’s denial of God makes more holocausts all the more probable and justifiable. Without God, there are no absolutes of right and wrong. I’ve read several articles about college professors who have asked students if Hitler was wrong in killing Jews, and many, true to relativistic logic, said he couldn’t be condemned because he might have thought he was doing the right thing. I find that frightening, but it is the logical consequence of relativism. Nothing can be condemned as intrinsically evil because morality is just a matter of personal opinion.

 

[JimG]

I would say that some of Singer’s views might be wrong. But I would like to point out that he really wants to alleivate suffering in the world. He sincerely believes in this.

Yes, I think he does. I don’t view him as an ogre; but his philosophy is extremely dangerous. He would alleviate suffering by killing those who suffer–the very young, the old, the disabled, those who are really not up to standard. Which at some point could be you and me and our loved ones.

These people, many of whom are atheist or agnostic, are apparently not ready to go quiety.

 

[ribozyme]

He doesn’t get my sympathy at all. Many Jews survived the Holocaust with their faith intact and did not go on to promote evil philosophies of life. Ironically, Peter Singer’s views are right in line with those of the Nazis – he presumes to have the authority to arbitrarily determine who should live and who should die (the latest I’ve read about him is that he thinks it should be legal to kill a newborn child up to 2 months of age). Peter Singer’s denial of God makes more holocausts all the more probable and justifiable. Without God, there are no absolutes of right and wrong. I’ve read several articles about college professors who have asked students if Hitler was wrong in killing Jews, and many, true to relativistic logic, said he couldn’t be condemned because he might have thought he was doing the right thing. I find that frightening, but it is the logical consequence of relativism. Nothing can be condemned as intrinsically evil because morality is just a matter of personal opinion.

Well, I am saying that it is because of the problem of evil, he does not believe in God, or includes him in is ethical theory. Whether you disagree with him or not, Peter Singer wants a better world for everyone, not himself or for a group. Unlike the Nazis in Germany, Singer is concerned with the best interests of everyone, not only a small group. I think Singer’s philosophy of utilitarianism prevents tragedies like the Holocaust from happening because we have to act in the best interest of others. Singer’s decisions about life are not arbitrary though.

How are Singer’s views akin to those of the Nazis… In fact, he wants to prevent human suffering.

Regarding your questions, Dai Yoshida:

1. If he had become a molester or a killer, would you be sympathetic?
   No, I created this thread to show why Singer is an atheist. According to his a secular philosophy, his actions are morally acceptable, and unlike a molester or killer, he does not intend to harm people for his own benefit. I do not consider Singer to be selfish at all.
2. If he had thrown his aging father out into the street, would he have been happier?

Well, I do not think so, as it is best for one to show compassion.

1. Does atheism solve the problems of evil?
   No, but we should do our best to prevent evil.

I have one question for all of you. Why do you believe in a personal God, even if there is evil in the world? Why didn’t you become like Peter Singer, an atheist, with this dilemma.

 

[Contarini]

I have recently got a copy of* Practical Ethics *from a library, and from reading it, I would say that some of Singer’s views might be wrong. But I would like to point out that he really wants to alleivate suffering in the world. He sincerely believes in this. I don’t think Peter Singer should be viewed as some ogre, but he honestly wants humanity to be happy; he has good intentions, regardless of whether his views are wrong.

Well, regarding the topic, I found this website:

humanevents.com/article.php?id=7942

This explains Peter Singer’s atheism, and from reading that, one should sympathetic to him because of his history. He is like myself because we do not find Christianity palatable to the problem of evil.

Any commentary?

Singer’s views are monstrously evil. You do well to remind us that he appears to have (no one can know for sure, but the same is true of those whose views we find admirable) the best of intentions. We should not judge his personal character.

But the fact is that Singer’s philosophy allows for the mass slaughter of the innocent if it will alleviate suffering. Life has no intrinsic value to him–it’s all about whether a sentient being is undergoing pain or not.

This is not the way to prevent a repetition of the Holocaust. It’s the way to perpetuate the holocaust of the unborn that is already occurring, and to pave the way for a widening of the slaughter to anyone whose present condition of sentience doesn’t make their killing an obviously cruel act.

Edwin

 

[Ham1]

One of SInger’s chief errors is his belief that a life without suffering is the happiest life. A simple look around the world gives us numerous examples of people who suffer or who lack material goods and yet, are quite happy and fulfilled.

I’m sure Singer has good intentions and truly believes that his philosophy will lead others to happiness, but that doesn’t mean he’s not mistaken.

And how exactly does evil present a problem for Christianity?

 

[Contarini]

Well, I am saying that it is because of the problem of evil, he does not believe in God, or includes him in is ethical theory. Whether you disagree with him or not, Peter Singer wants a better world for everyone, not himself or for a group. Unlike the Nazis in Germany, Singer is concerned with the best interests of everyone, not only a small group. I think Singer’s philosophy of utilitarianism prevents tragedies like the Holocaust from happening because we have to act in the best interest of others.

You’re right that Singer’s philosophy differs radically from that of the Nazis in that they embraced selfishness as a good. The Nazis thought that only the happiness of Aryans counted. Singer thinks that the happiness of all sentient beings counts, and therefore he’s miles ahead of the Nazis morally. A far better analogy would be with Communism, which does claim to provide for the good of all, but historically has used widespread, ruthless violence to do so.

What all these ideologies share is the willingness to justify the means by the end–the refusal to see life as having an intrinsic value. Read some of the writings of the Nazis themselves (but in small doses or you will vomit). They recognized that what they were doing was distasteful, but they argued that it was necessary. They held that there was no fixed standard of morality, but rather an action was good if it advanced the welfare of the German people. Singer holds to that same principle–it’s just that his views of whose welfare counts are much wider. That’s all to the good, but he still holds to a radically evil principle.

Edwin

 

[ribozyme]

One of SInger’s chief errors is his belief that a life without suffering is the happiest life. A simple look around the world gives us numerous examples of people who suffer or who lack material goods and yet, are quite happy and fulfilled.

I’m sure Singer has good intentions and truly believes that his philosophy will lead others to happiness, but that doesn’t mean he’s not mistaken.

And how exactly does evil present a problem for Christianity?

How could one reconcile to notion of a loving God with the Holocaust. Peter Singer found this an impossible reconcilation, so that explains why he is an atheist.

 

[JimG]

Singer is concerned with the best interests of everyone, not only a small group.

Except that for many people, he considers their death to be in their best interest: disabled infants, disabled adults, the comatose, perhaps the mentally retarded.

I urge you, before deciding, along with Singer, that anyone’s death is in their best interest, to read what the group Not Dead Yet has to say about Singer.

You might also read what Harriet McBryde Johnson, herself an atheist, and also a severely disabled woman, has to say about her meeting with Singer. Her article appeared in an issue of the NY Times Sunday magazine.

Her disabilities are so severe that people with Singer’s philosophy would probably consider her life “not worth living.” She doesn’t consider it so, and his philosophy, now being promulgated in our universites, represents a very real danger to her and others like her. It will also be a very real danger to you if you plan to ever get old or sick.

 

[Ham1]

How could one reconcile to notion of a loving God with the Holocaust. Peter Singer found this an impossible reconcilation, so that explains why he is an atheist.

The concept of freewill…God created us in his image hence we had to have freewill in order to love him back. Freewill necessarily has to admit the possibility of choosing the good but also the ability to choose that which lacks good. So in order to create Man, a most glorious creature who is capable of love, God had to give that creature the ability to reject God himself. The result is admittedly lower low’s but also much higher high’s as man is capable of love.

 

[deb1]

How could one reconcile to notion of a loving God with the Holocaust. Peter Singer found this an impossible reconcilation, so that explains why he is an atheist.

This is a question that many have asked. But it is strange that you accept that evil exists in the world but not that ultimate good does. To me, if there is one-evil-there must be its opposite, goodness.

As Ham said, we have free will. And we can use that free will for wonderful acts of kindness toward one another. There were people who risked their lives during the Holocaust to save Jewish families.

The flip side is that we can also commit horrible atrocities against one another.

We have a choice in life, to be good or to be bad, but because none of us live in a vacuum, our choices will effect others and their choices will effect us.

I feel sad for Singer’s Grandmother who stopped believing in God and therefore did not have the comfort of knowing that she would see her husband again.

 

[Dai_Yoshida]

I have one question for all of you. Why do you believe in a personal God, even if there is evil in the world? Why didn’t you become like Peter Singer, an atheist, with this dilemma.

I am a father. It is my place to teach my children to do no harm to others. It is not my place to lock them in their room so that they are incapable of doing harm. I would not be a loving father if I did.

I am capable of great evil. You are capable of great evil.
It is my choice to avoid evil. I thank God for my free will.

 

[ribozyme]

I am a father. It is my place to teach my children to do no harm to others. It is not my place to lock them in their room so that they are incapable of doing harm. I would not be a loving father if I did.

I am capable of great evil. You are capable of great evil.
It is my choice to avoid evil. I thank God for my free will.

Interesting analogy, but if a policeman saw me going on a rampage (running down people with cars) akin to that of what the protagonist does on Grand Theft Auto (the video games), it is morally acceptable for him to kill me with brutal force as my actions are not in the best interest of society.

The same can be said about Hitler; he needed to be stopped, but obviously an omnipotent God is capable of stopping Hitler, but did not choose to do anything about it.

 

[Rosalinda]

Ribozyme, I suggest you read this interview by Eric Metaxas.
[sign]WHO NEEDS GOD?
If God can’t take some hard questions thrown at him, says Eric Metaxas, then we all have some really big problems. An excerpt from his new book, ‘Everything You Always Wanted to Know About God (but were afraid to ask).’[/sign]

godspy.com/faith/Who-Needs-God-by-Eric-Metaxas.cfm

If you are sincerely searching for truth you will find truth but remember God is Truth. Therefore, your search is not for something: rather someone. I AM WHO AM was the name given when Moses asked the burning bush “If they shall say to me (the children of Israel) What is his name? What shall I say to them?” Exodus 3:13