Peter Singer's motivations for his philosophy

[Veritas41]

I think it is humanity that is inherently good, not the intervention of God in the world. We are capable of benevolence without God, and we must do what we can to prevent the triumph of malice and hatred in the world (such as the Holocaust)./quote

Perhaps inherently good, but not completely good – we are seriously flawed through original sin. That’s why we struggle so do to the “ought” we know we should do and find it so terribly easy to do the “naught” we shouldn’t do. We cannot overcome this flaw without the grace of God. Non-Christians are capable of performing good acts, but they cannot change their nature on their own. Germany was one of the most civilized nations in the world (if you consider orderliness, culture, etc. to be definitions of civilization yet descended to the lowest depths under the Nazi regime. How do you prevent the triumph of malice and hatred in the world without God?

 

[ribozyme]

Your definition is very broad.

What about those who give their lives for others? By giving their lives and suffering for another are they promoting evil?

For some psychopaths torturing people gives them pleasure and not doing so gives them pain. Wouldn’t such a definition of goodness and evil be very subjective and dependent on the individual’s own emotions?

Killing someone would become good for the serial killer but evil for his victims.

How far does promoting happiness go? Am I only good if I promote others’ happiness, even if it is ultimately harmful to the person. What if I provide a die hard alcoholic with alcohol? Am I doing right or wrong? After all, it makes him/ her happy.

Animals don’t worry about one anothers pleasure and pain but work on instinct and a desire for their own survival. Why am I held to a higher standard then an animal?

But from a utilitarian perspective, being a serial killer is wrong because a person suffers just to fulfill the selfish desires of the killer. Surely killing provides pleasure to the killer. It also provides displeasure to the victim, his/her family, and society for eliciting fear of well-being in society. A killer does not need to kill in order to find pleasure, since there is other ways to find pleasure without causing suffering, it is wrong.

But giving an alcoholic alcohol would promote pain and suffering. If that person were to drive, he is at risk or harming himself and others.

Regarding Hitler, there are radical differences between Hitler and Peter Singer as pointed out in this thread.

 

[ribozyme]

The fact that people are even READING material written by this monster is chilling to me. Do you really want to open yourself up and make yourself vulnerable to being influenced by such a person as this? Why are you reading and pondering things that he has written? Surely there are other author’s books to read on these same subjects.

…

The strangest thing is that people are and have described Mr. Singer as “not an ogre or a monster”! I have even heard “soft spoken” and “kind”. Of course…if he were a screaming maniac calling for the slaughter of children people would dismiss his ranting as coming from a nut! The fact that he IS so soft spoken and seemingly kind and intelligent makes him the most dangerous kind of monster that there is because people actually listen to him.

Thank you for letting me share my thoughts.

I do not intend to say that his views are correct, as I do not completely agree with him. I am interested in discussing motives for his beliefs. The reason I am interested in Peter Singer’s work is because he is the falsification that atheists cannot act morally (regardless of whether there moral system is perfect or not). Even though he is an atheist, he donates 20% of his salary to charity because of utilitarian interests. He has shown how preference utilitarianism gives people a reason to act morally (although some of Singer’s moral judgments are probably incorrect).

Well, I do not think he is a monster… he does not enjoy killing infants, I bet he finds it distasteful, but he honestly believes he is eliminating suffering (it is a dilemma to him; he does not want babies to be killed with alacrity). He has good intentions and cares about the welfare of humanity (and animals), regardless of whether the consequences of his choices are detrimental. I think he became an ethicist because he wants to prevent events like the Holocaust from happening, but he cannot justify that from a theistic moral system as he does not believe in God, and I think utilitarianism, if properly applied prevents tragedies like the Holocaust from happening, and utilitarianism is a viable secular alternative.

Well, I will say this… if there are no babies born with disabilities, then Peter Singer would have NO reason to present those arguments. Why doesn’t God intervene by preventing babies from having such defects? I would like to add that such events make it difficult for Singer and I to believe in a personal God.

 

[jimmy]

Regarding Hitler, there are radical differences between Hitler and Peter Singer as pointed out in this thread.

Peter Singer says that a mother should be allowed to kill her 2 year old son if she wishes. That is no different than Hitler or any other dictator.

Mr. Singer beleives in a two month “buffer zone” in which parents would be allowed to murder their child in the first 60 days after birth if they have disabilites.

It is a 2 year buzzer zone.

 

[jimmy]

I do not intend to say that his views are correct, as I do not completely agree with him. I am interested in discussing motives for his beliefs. The reason I am interested in Peter Singer’s work is because he is the falsification that atheists cannot act morally (regardless of whether there moral system is perfect or not). Even though he is an atheist, he donates 20% of his salary to charity because of utilitarian interests. He has shown how preference utilitarianism gives people a reason to act morally (although some of Singer’s moral judgments are probably incorrect).

The question comes to mind, what does it mean to be moral? It is a relativistic system. You are still fullfilling your own personal morals. All this means is that you are moral according to your own morals, and maybe a few others. But morals really cease to mean anything from an atheistic perspective because morals basically become what each individual feels to be right. You call Peter Singer moral because he gives 20% of his income for utilitarianism. That is great, but on the other hand he advocates the killing of a 2 year old baby by its mother.

 

[Rosalinda]

Ribozyme, I would ask you to read this brief biography of Maximillian Kolbe, a Catholic priest, who died in Aushwitz in 1941, arrested for sheltering 2,000 Jews. Like you he was very interested in science.

You seem to think Singer’s charitable donations prove that even this atheist has some redeeming qualities. Juxtapose this man’s “charity” with the heroic virtue of Kolbe who far from living in a comfortable situation and contributing from his excess wealth gave everything. A utilitarian in such a concentration camp would probably have been fighting for every scrap of food he could get, motivated as he would be by survival of the fittest. How do you explain a man who would stand at the back of the foodline so that the other prisoners would be first? How do you explain a man who would chose to be beaten, kicked and whipped mercilessly rather than deny Christ? How do you explain a man who asked to die a long, cruel, tortuous death by starvation in place of another? How can you explain the radiance of Kolbe’s face in death as testified by an eye witness.

The heroism of Father Kolbe went echoing through Auschwitz. In that desert of hatred he had sown love… ‘In those conditions … in the midst of a brutalization of thought and feeling and words such as had never before been known, man indeed became a ravening wolf in his relations with other men. And into this state of affairs came the heroic self-sacrifice of Fr Maximilian. The atmosphere grew lighter, as this thunderbolt provoked its profound and salutary shock.’ Jerzy Bielecki declared that Fr Kolbe’s death was ‘a shock filled with hope, bringing new life and strength… It was like a powerful shaft of light in the darkness of the camp.’

ewtn.com/library/MARY/KOLBE2.htm

Where was God? As surely as Christ was born cold, naked and poor in a stable He was there in the concentration camp administering to the poor, starving, brutalized inmates through the instrument of that priest. Today, He searches for generous souls who will cooperate with his grace to bring comfort and healing to a broken world. Evil exists because so many have chosen darkness to the light.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Ribozyme,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply…I will answer your dilemna and Mr. Singers simply…“If there is a God then why does he allow children to be born with defects?”

My answer: **He doesn’t **

There is no one on the planet today or ever that is “defective”. Sure, like everyone else I use terms like “disabled” or “handicapped” because they are used in our language and it defines more clearly what I am speaking about. But the FACT remains that no human being is disabled or defective. This is why Mr. Singers beleif that children with disabilities should be allowed to be killed are completely insane!

What defines “defective”? Does it mean no having an an in-tact body? Does it mean being ugly? How about mentally retarded?

Each human being is created in the image and likeness of God. Each human being is here on purpose, they are willed by God, each one is necessary and has their place. …Now look at my daughter who has Down Syndrome. I am not saying that my daughter is perfect (no no no! she is quite naughty let me tell you!) but statistically my daughter is less likely to use drugs, rob someone, wind up in jail or commit violent crimes. When she was born I was sad for her disability (or what I thought was a disability) but over time I wonder if she is not really lucker that I am…that she will have a much easier time getting back to Heaven then I will! We are all making a huge mistake when we assign a value to someones life by earthly standards. At times in history a black people did not have value, or women, or many people. What does another person’s opinion of my value to society have to God…NOTHING!

In conclusion,what I am saying is that Mr. Singer’s philosophy is flawed from the beginning because he believes that individuals with disabilities exist in the first place, and I do not think that they do.

Thank you for letting me share my thoughts

And thank you for sharing your thoughts! Monicad–what a beautiful mother you have become!

Parents who are in the vunerable position of learning of their child’s handicap should not be tempted, (and even encouraged) to kill their own child. Such encouragement already takes place frequently when handicaps are discovered in utero. Over time, Monicad demonstrates she learned to view her daughter’s down syndrom as a blessing, and other parents can as well. But if they kill the child before they ever realize these things, they may never learn what Monicad learned. That is why I asked above what time frame one needs to decide if something is good or evil. Time changes our perception of such things.

We don’t can’t get rid of handicaps destroying those with handicaps. We don’t get rid of poverty by killing the poor. We don’t solve the hunger problem by killing the hungry.

 

[JimG]

Mr. Singer beleives in a two month “buffer zone” in which parents would be allowed to murder their child in the first 60 days after birth if they have disabilites.

The fact that people are even READING material written by this monster is chilling to me.

You are right. The fact that people are not only reading Singer, but that he is being paid to teach and propound this philosophy in universities is quite chilling. The end result of his philosophy is that none of us are safe. At some point in everyone’s life, sooner or later, our supposed “utility” to ourselves and to society, will inevitably become less than our cost of maintenence.

My wife and I looked after my father for three years. The utilitarian thing to do would have been to kill him. My mother in law was blind nearly her whole life. Should she have been terminated as soon as the blindness came on?

Let’s face it–children cost more than they produce for the first 18, 20, or 25 years of their life; their utility to society is less than their cost. They’re not safe either. Old people require medical care and perhaps a great deal of personal care. Their utility has declined.

The very fact that Prof. Singer proposes a two month buffer period during which newborns can be killed should have been enough to make him unacceptable. The fact that it has not, and that he has been given a prestigious job at Princeton University, bodes ill for our society. It’s no wonder that the disability rights groups are against him.

If Prof. Singer is proposed as a good example of morality for atheists, then I’d say they have the wrong role model. I know atheists who would never think of killing an infant, atheists who oppose abortion.

 

[ribozyme]

You are right. The fact that people are not only reading Singer, but that he is being paid to teach and propound this philosophy in universities is quite chilling. The end result of his philosophy is that none of us are safe. At some point in everyone’s life, sooner or later, our supposed “utility” to ourselves and to society, will inevitably become less than our cost of maintenence.

My wife and I looked after my father for three years. The utilitarian thing to do would have been to kill him. My mother in law was blind nearly her whole life. Should she have been terminated as soon as the blindness came on?

Let’s face it–children cost more than they produce for the first 18, 20, or 25 years of their life; their utility to society is less than their cost. They’re not safe either. Old people require medical care and perhaps a great deal of personal care. Their utility has declined.

The very fact that Prof. Singer proposes a two month buffer period during which newborns can be killed should have been enough to make him unacceptable. The fact that it has not, and that he has been given a prestigious job at Princeton University, bodes ill for our society. It’s no wonder that the disability rights groups are against him.

If Prof. Singer is proposed as a good example of morality for atheists, then I’d say they have the wrong role model. I know atheists who would never think of killing an infant, atheists who oppose abortion.

Professor Singer does not take into account cost that much though in his ethical scheme, and he does not think it is obligatory to kill a person with a disability (such as your father) but merely morally acceptable. If you did not know, Professor Singer encountered such a dilemma in his life regarding his mother, and he did not killer her. These issues are more complex than Peter Singer imagined.

No, Singer does not regard killing as a panacea. An example of this is that he wants people to donate their money to charity, rather than adovating the killing of the impoverished.

I think many people misunderstand Singer. It is okay to disagree with him (as I do on some life issues) but at least understand his views.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…he does not think it is obligatory to kill a person with a disability (such as your father) but merely morally acceptable. If you did not know, Professor Singer encountered such a dilemma in his life regarding his mother, and he did not killer her.

Please remember, in most places euthanasia is currently illegal and criminally prosecuted. Singer may not have killed his own mother, but he advocates changes to laws that protect the disabled; such changes would eventually result in the killing of someone else’s mother. Once something becomes legal, it becomes “morally acceptable” in the eyes of society, and then it becomes practiced more frequently. The number of abortions rose dramatically after Roe v Wade. Prior to that, most people considered abortion immoral.

…I think many people misunderstand Singer. It is okay to disagree with him (as I do on some life issues) but at least understand his views.

I’m glad to read you disagree with Singer on some of these life issues. And we should get facts straight too. The horrible idea to eliminate poverty by eliminating the poor through abortion was from someone else, and I should probably not have brought that up in this thread. I mentioned that because it parralels with elimination of suffering by eliminating those who suffer, such as what Singer advocates.

Yet your idea of a “misunderstood Professor Singer” whom we should “sympathize with because of his background” sounds naive. Singer is hardly a good example of an ethical, moral atheist just because he doesn’t kill his mother and he donates to charity. His “ethics” are seriously flawed.

 

[deb1]

I don’t think that Singer is a good example of atheistic morality. If the OP wishes to put forward that an atheist can be good and kind, then please site a different example. I bet the Op can probably find better examples of moral atheists.

As a Catholic, I have no problem believing that those who aren’t Christians can be good also. This is because Catholics do not believe -like some Protestants- that man kind is totally degenerate. We all have God’s laws written on our hearts and when we work in conjunction with that law we do good regardless of our individual disbelief in God. The fact that most humans can agree that there is a right or wrong indicates that there must be a higher Good.

 

[ribozyme]

**Once something becomes legal, it becomes “morally acceptable” in the eyes of society, and then it becomes practiced more frequently. **

Unfortunately you are correct. But more sophisticated ethicists (including Singer) realize that the law does not dictate whether an action is correct. Well, we could prevent the abuse of euthanasia by preventing people from euthanasia by their preferences. If a person has stated that they do not want to be euthanized before they are unable to decide for themselves, they should not be euthanized, which is what preference utilitarianism promotes. When euthanasia is legalized, you are correct that it would have negative consequences that Peter Singer did not intend, so the legalization of euthanasia might not be practical.

Yet your idea of a “misunderstood Professor Singer” whom we should “sympathize with because of his background” sounds naive. Singer is hardly a good example of an ethical, moral atheist just because he doesn’t kill his mother and he donates to charity. His “ethics” are seriously flawed/

I do not think people should see him as a monster but as a misunderstood person who is not infallible, but I think that he has made some egregious judgment in ethics, but in reality he has good intentions and demonstrates compassion. He really cares about humanity. Singer does have a good heart though.

 

[Veritas41]

Ribozyme,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply…I will answer your dilemna and Mr. Singers simply…“If there is a God then why does he allow children to be born with defects?”

There are two responses I can think of to this question. First of all, we are all born with the most serious “defect” of all – original sin (from which comes physical defects as well). Even if our bodies may not have any “defects,” our souls do. All the suffering experienced by humanity since Adam and Eve have sprung from this one major “defect” we all shar. e. Thankfully, God didn’t decide to eliminate mankind because of this “defect,” but chose to redeem mankind so we could be healed and saved from this “defect.”

My second response is from personal experience. I knew a pediatric neurosurgeon who had 8 children, one of whom was born anencephalic but lived until the age of 11 or 12. His son, Kress, was blind, deaf, unable to communicate or interact in any way. He sat in a wheelchair most of the time. This doctor was very bitter at first about the condition of his son, wondering why God would give him such a child. But over time he realized something veryimportant about Kress. Because of the very fact he was completely handicapped and unable to do anything for himself or anyone else, he was the perfect “teacher” for his brothers and sisters to learn true unconditional love. Kress had nothing to “offer” in the usual sense we think of others, but his mother, father, and brothers and sisters all came to love him deeply. He was part of their family. Peter Singer’s philosophy says people like Kress are better off dead, but his family learned otherwise through their own personal experience.

 

[djrakowski]

I do not think people should see him as a monster but as a misunderstood person who is not infallible, but I think that he has made some egregious judgment in ethics, but in reality he has good intentions and demonstrates compassion. He really cares about humanity. Singer does have a good heart though.

Objectively, Dr. Singer is not compassionate and does not have a good heart. I may grudgingly admit that he has good intentions, but unless those intentions are based upon an objective standard of truth, those intentions are meaningless, and as others have commented, even monstrous.

The lack of objective standards is, I think, the single greatest flaw of atheistic moral codes. Since Dr. Singer *says *he has good intentions and *says *he’s compassionate, and since some people agree with him (which is totally incomprehensible to the majority of the members of this forum), his proponents say, he must be well-intentioned and compassionate, and therefore a moral person. But, on what basis are those qualities attributed to Dr. Singer? His moral house - and that of those who substantially agree with him - is built on sand.

 

[djrakowski]

But over time he realized something veryimportant about Kress. Because of the very fact he was completely handicapped and unable to do anything for himself or anyone else, he was the perfect “teacher” for his brothers and sisters to learn true unconditional love. Kress had nothing to “offer” in the usual sense we think of others, but his mother, father, and brothers and sisters all came to love him deeply. He was part of their family. Peter Singer’s philosophy says people like Kress are better off dead, but his family learned otherwise through their own personal experience.

Excellent response. Dr. Singer has no objective reason to say that Kress would be better off dead, and that those who loved and cared for him would be better off with him dead. He has only his own opinion, which runs counter to the direct personal experiences of this family. Thanks for sharing this story.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I…I think that he has made some egregious judgment in ethics, but in reality he has good intentions and demonstrates compassion. He really cares about humanity. Singer does have a good heart though.

People often complain that “Christians are judgemental of other people.” We should judge words and actions, but we can not truly know their hearts or motives. I assume the best of people, and I don’t pass judgment on anyone’s heart. But you just did. Don’t be so judgemental of Singer’s heart.

 

[Rosalinda]

Very curious how quickly we suspend our critical faculties and, perhaps out of a sense of misguided compassion, extend the carte blanche to Singer because his family suffered in the Holocaust. In Canada, we have a similar phenomenon in the person of Dr. Henry Morgentaler who illegally committed abortions and fought for this “right” all the way to the Supreme Court. He has a similar cult following in Canadian universities as does Singer in American universities.

It is irrational to offer up the minds of our youth and the bodies of women and children to be infected by one and butchered by the other of these two high priests of secular humanism. Singer and Morgentaler are both projecting their pain, inflicting their pain and perpetuating their pain. Only a culture enamoured with necrophillia would countenance the evils of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. It doesn’t matter what their motives are: the killing of helpless innocents is and will remain an intrinsically disordered act. History will not repeat itself; however, these aberrant philosophies will take an unimaginable toll at proportions heretofore unseen. With sophisticated technology the elite have the power to magnify our darkest, most destructive instincts.
Read this article by Wesley Smith: Killing Babies, Compassionately
The Netherlands follows in Germany’s footsteps
weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/003dncoj.asp?pg=1

By the way, Ribozyme, don’t be so readily beguiled by the exterior, social graces. This book, "The Architects of the Culture of Death" by Donald DeMarco and Benjamin Wikes rips the masks off of 23 influential thinkers and shows what flawed, damaged persons they really were.

 

[ribozyme]

I am sure if one were to read enough of what NAMBLA beleives, that one could be convinced that they have the best interest of children in mind and that they are really people with good hearts that want the best for humanity and for children. NAMBLA is very clear that they do not advocate for people to violate laws, but they would like to change laws to allow for consensual sex for boys as young as 12 years of age. If you go to their website you will read that they beleive in personal freedom, the right to expression and claim to be an educational and supportive organization. Now doesn’t that sound wonderful! Who could call them monsters or evil people since they really have good hearts deep down and want the best for children! If you read about them you will see that they are educated, well-read, non-violent and (dare I say?..I wonder if some of them even give money to charity like Mr. Singer?) yikes!!!

Mr. Singer may have much good in his heart…but by focusing on the good we may endanger ourselves to be influenced by him. The Devil uses many tricks to get into our hearts and our minds. By entertaining philosophies written by individuals that beleive in murder of innocents…in my opinion we are opening a dangerous door.

I admire individuals that focus on the good of a person which is actually very Christ-like. I am glad when people try and see the good in people, however in closing I would hope people would eventually come to decide that Mr. Singer needs our prayers much more then our admiration. It would be better for him, better for our souls, and better for the world.

Thank you for letting me share my thoughts

I thank you for the NAMBLA example that falsifies my claim of Singer having a good heart. I am starting to feel somewhat disgusted by Singer now, although I still find his work intellectually stimulating.

Regarding Dr. Henry Morgentaler, unlike Singer, I find no redeeming characteristics in him.

 

[ribozyme]

ribozyme,

Thank you for your most gracious comment…not many people that I have encountered in life will thank someone for posting an opposing view to something they beleive.

It seems that you are a very intelligent and open minded individual. I pray that you will take your time to read spiritually enlightening materials written by holy individuals, and therefore use your intellect, influence and insight to help others.

God Bless you

Well, I will concede that utilitarianism is quite flawed… For example, does not provide a reason for one to behave as Maximillan Kolbe, and using that philosophy, one could justify the agenda of groups like NABMLA. I am now starting to see the problem of using humans as means to an end now.

Regarding my views of Singer, I still agree with him on some issues though, but I sort of lost my image of him being a morally, well-reasoned person. But I do think that his views have been misrepresented in this thread and by other Catholics though. It is not obligatory that one has to abide by his philosophy, but one should understand his rationalizations.

Well, I am far from converting, and I doubt that it will happen. I currently precieve some contradictions and incongruities with certain Catholic teachings regarding Original sin, purgatory, etc.

 

[Rosalinda]

Thank you Ribozyme for your frankness and patience. You have a difficult task searching for answers to the fundamental questions of existence, without a foundation in faith. It must be a bewildering trial with so many viewpoints to consider. Nevertheless, if you persevere in your quest with a sincere heart you will find a rock solid foundation on which to build a future of goodness, beauty and truth. In times of crisis, like Maximillian Kolbe, you will be a man of singular courage and strength. If you concede that the utilitarian philosophy is flawed you have already found the beginning of wisdom because whoever seeks to live life at the level of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain is doomed to a life of disappointment and frustration. Better to find a joy and peace which the world can never take away. That is the lesson of St. Maximillian Kolbe. He refused to be reduced to the level of a hungry trapped rat trained to respond to the commands of cruel prison guard. Because he was a fearless soul he did the unexpected.

That is my prayer for you, Ribozyme. May you learn what a glorious destiny you have because your life is very special. It was planned by God from the beginning of time. Before the creation of all that is seen and unseen, the creative mind of God imagined an infinite number of possibilities. When He considered the possibility of your existence, He obviously liked what He saw.