Peter Singer's utilitarian ethics do not threaten society

[ribozyme]

I wonder why the members of this message board fear Peter Singer’s views. His views are relatively innocuous when compared to the views of other extremists.

By the way, you should NOT be concerned about people such as Peter Singer. I will reiterate the threat is philosophy presents to Western ethics is relatively beign.

Now, does anyone want to defend the views of Richard Lynn?

He has some profound words of wisdom that I believe that you should pay careful attention to:

What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the populations of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of “phasing out” of such peoples. If the world is to evolve more better humans, then obviously someone has to make way for them. … To think otherwise is mere sentimentality.

Source

Here is another summary of his views:

“What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the ‘phasing out’ of such peoples…Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent”

Source

Here is a BBC article on Lynn’s ideas: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1952449.stm

Dr David King, a geneticist and coordinator of the watchdog group, Human Genetics Alert, said: "We find Richard Lynn’s claims that some human beings are inherently superior to others repugnant.

Estesbob, I did not realize Richard Lynn’s actual position on this issue until recently, and I am sorry I associated you with that creep on an earlier thread.

Now tell me why Richard Lynn (and J. Philippe Rushton) isn’t a threat to humanity. Do not pretend that they do not deem some races “inferior”.

 

[Scottgun]

Defending Peter Singer by offering somebody with even more reprehensible views is a dog that won’t hunt because logically, there is no stopping point from one to the other.

Scott

 

[ribozyme]

Defending Peter Singer by offering somebody with even more reprehensible views is a dog that won’t hunt because logically, there is no stopping point from one to the other.

Scott

I wasn’t defending Singer; I was wondering why many people here aren’t concerned with people such as Richard Lynn.

 

[Scottgun]

I wasn’t defending Singer; I was wondering why many people here aren’t concerned with people such as Richard Lynn.

Sorry I misunderstood. Keeping track of every kook with a kook theory is impossible. We address issues as they come up like everyone else. A perfect example is when people accuse the Church of obsessing about abortion or homosexuality in lieu of other sins. We don’t, the culture does and the Church just restates what it has always taught. If there were ever Thieves’ Pride Week parades, there would certainly be more Chruch outcry about the wrongness of stealing. But there are not such parades because the culture still maintains something resembling a taboo against stealing, hence no need for the Church to re-emphasize it.

Scott

 

[Ham1]

I wasn’t defending Singer; I was wondering why many people here aren’t concerned with people such as Richard Lynn.

Peter Singer tends to word his views in such a way that people can be sucked into missing the glaring philosophical issues with his system. Richard Lynn is a little more obvious and so, turns people off to his message. Both Singer and Lynn subscribe to the fact that humans have no intrinsic worth but that their value is contigent upon whether they are valued by others. Such a position leads to devastating consequences and rather ridiculous ethical conclusions.

 

[yugnok]

I wasn’t defending Singer; I was wondering why many people here aren’t concerned with people such as Richard Lynn.

How can you say you aren’t defending him? The very title of your thread is defending Singer by saying that he is not a threat.

Appealing to the fact that another reprehensible philosopher/psychologist may be worse does not make Singer any more palatable.

If you are asking why more people don’t care about Lynn, not many people have heard of him. He is old news. The Bell Curve stuff which he supported has been regularly discredited in Universities in this country for a long time, beyond that I don’t know of anyone who listens what he had to say. SInger’s philosophy, on the other hand, seems to have more of a following among the “elite”. Singer is still making public appearances promoting his work and the media gives him a platform to promote his philosophy of death.

Granted, he would be more of a threat if a lot of people really took his “ethics” seriously. Fortunately, there are a lot of good, sensible people who recognize the dignity and inviability of the human person and brush off his ideas as rubbish.

 

[JimG]

Based solely on your descriptions, I don’t see much difference between the positions of Peter Singer and Richard Lynn. Both appear to impute no essential value to humans as humans. They are valued only according to their usefulness or breeding or superiority in some particular measure.

I suppose some populations might object to being “phased out.”

"Genocide? There is no genocide here. We are merely phasing out the Jews (or the Hutu’s, or the Irish, or those scoring in the lower percentiiles of the SAT. . . ")

 

[mlchance]

Appealing to the fact that another reprehensible philosopher/psychologist may be worse does not make Singer any more palatable.

But didn’t you know that David Berkowitz really isn’t that bad because look at all the horrible things John Wayne Gacy did.



I mean, seriously, is there any real point to all of these “ribozyme bashes David Lynn” threads? Do you, ribozyme, actually think you’ve stumbled on to something the Church hasn’t long ago considered and authoritatively rejected?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[ribozyme]

But didn’t you know that David Berkowitz really isn’t that bad because look at all the horrible things John Wayne Gacy did.



I mean, seriously, is there any real point to all of these “ribozyme bashes David Lynn” threads? Do you, ribozyme, actually think you’ve stumbled on to something the Church hasn’t long ago considered and authoritatively rejected?

– Mark L. Chance.

No, I have been focusing my attention on J. Philippe Rushton. I wonder why many people here are not that concerned with these people.

I am concerned because I believe in human equality and I believe they are a greater threat to social justice than Peter Singer.

Most importantly, I fear I might tranform into them. I do not want to adopt the mindset of people such a Richard Lynn.

Now tell me who is the GREATER of the two evils: Lynn or Singer?

 

[mlchance]

No, I have been focusing my attention on J. Philippe Rushton. I wonder why many people here are not that concerned with these people.

I would hazard the guess that we’re not obsessed with such people because we do not…

…fear [we] might tranform into them.

IOW, the problem you perceive is actually much more reflective of your personal philosophy and religious convictions than they are reflective of the average practicing Catholic.

But that’s just a guess.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[ribozyme]

I would hazard the guess that we’re not obsessed with such people because we do not…

IOW, the problem you perceive is actually much more reflective of your personal philosophy and religious convictions than they are reflective of the average practicing Catholic.

But that’s just a guess.

– Mark L. Chance.

No, I said I fear I would transform into a Richard Lynn. I never implied that Catholics would be influenced by Lynn. In addition, the general populace might be persuaded by Lynn’s arguments.

So tell my why the ideas of Lynn are benign compared to Peter Singer’s utilitarian ethics.

 

[mlchance]

So tell my why the ideas of Lynn are benign compared to Peter Singer’s utilitarian ethics.

Other than you, who here has said his ideas were benign compared to anything? Again, even if his ideas are “benign compared to Peter Singer’s utilitarian ethics,” what does that mean? Again, is David Berkowitz an acceptable murderer merely because his methods and motives are perceived as less offensive than those of, say, John Wayne Gacy?

I submit once more: These threads seem to reflect nothing more than a deficiency in your personal philosophy/religion. Sensible people with a conscience developed in light of Catholic moral teaching do not fear turning into utilitarian monsters of any stripe.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Jennifer123]

Ribo-

I appreciate your persistant efforts at finding something which defines you, and I’m glad you are here running your ideas through a Catholic filter. I pray that you take this information into your formation.

I just want to ask that you take heed though, as an obviously intelligent person, not to be seduced by the thirst of knowledge for the sake of knowing. Know that the truth is simple, and only the “fear of the Lord” is the beginning of wisdom. It is better to be wise than “smart”. Carefully consider truth.

God Bless.

 

[deb1]

Well, I for one had never heard of the two men you mentioned. I have heard about Singer and find him appaling and it is troubling that there are people even worse.

Don’t worry ribo, as long as you have the ability to emphatize with other humans and to not dehumanize other humans then you won’t turn into any of these men.

 

[marci]

Other than you, who here has said his ideas were benign compared to anything? Again, even if his ideas are “benign compared to Peter Singer’s utilitarian ethics,” what does that mean? Again, is David Berkowitz an acceptable murderer merely because his methods and motives are perceived as less offensive than those of, say, John Wayne Gacy?

I submit once more: These threads seem to reflect nothing more than a deficiency in your personal philosophy/religion. Sensible people with a conscience developed in light of Catholic moral teaching do not fear turning into utilitarian monsters of any stripe.

– Mark L. Chance.

Amen! Is Singer more dangerous than Hitler? What difference does it make? Both advocate/advocated ideas that the church would find reprehensible.

If you defend Singer for the next 50 years on every forum in CAs, I doubt you will ever find a positive response from any Catholic.

There is evil to be found in all forms in this world. Because evil exists am I in danger of adopting certain ideas that are in conflict with my faith? The answer is yes, but do I worry about it? NO. Why, because I trust that the Holy Spirit will assist me in my daily battles against Satan. Singer’s philosophy is just one of many evils to guard against. Tell him to take a number and step to the back of the line.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

Amen! Is Singer more dangerous than Hitler? What difference does it make? Both advocate/advocated ideas that the church would find reprehensible.

If you defend Singer for the next 50 years on every forum in CAs, I doubt you will ever find a positive response from any Catholic.

There is evil to be found in all forms in this world. Because evil exists am I in danger of adopting certain ideas that are in conflict with my faith? The answer is yes, but do I worry about it? NO. Why, because I trust that the Holy Spirit will assist me in my daily battles against Satan. Singer’s philosophy is just one of many evils to guard against. Tell him to take a number and step to the back of the line.

Singer has an endowed chair at one of the leading academic institution in the world. Therefore, he is a recognized leader in bioethics. When hospital boards decide to euthanize infants, Singer may well be academic source used as support.

Don’t be shocked if one day you find Catholic support for Singer. A lot of Catholic kids go to Princeton. Singer does get some good press around the country.

 

[mlchance]

…Singer may well be academic source used as support.

People are already using Singer to support various crimes against humanity.

Don’t be shocked if one day you find Catholic support for Singer.

You might find Catholics who support Singer’s views, but one cannot find Catholic support for them.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

From Lee and George
Embryonic Issues

“In his book Writings on an Ethical Life, published in 2000, Peter Singer stated that the proposition that a human embryo is, as a matter of biological fact, a human being is not only true, but beyond doubt:
It is possible to give “human being” a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to “member of the species Homo sapiens.” Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. *In this sense, there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and egg is a human being. *(emphasis supplied)”

Singer can actually be useful for the pro-life cause. Whenever, someone accuses you of merely spouting a religious position when arguing that the human embryo is a human being, this quote from Singer may help. Singer was and (is still) an atheist and very pro abortion. Of course this doesn’t mean that Singer isn’t against embryo killing or infanticide. He is just more honest.

 

[Jennifer123]

[Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. *In this sense, there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and egg is a human being.

Singer is arguing what makes a human a “person”. Seems to me that with the advent of DNA science they’ve just adjusted their arguments to further splitting of hairs. Have you ever met a human who wasn’t a “person”? But now we get “consciousness” and “potentiality” nonsense and all that.

 

[timotheos]

I wonder why the members of this message board fear Peter Singer’s views.

Perhaps not all do. I for one don’t fear them at all.

His views are no more fearsome than those of any other atheist-of-note. Singer, with his bioethical “quality of life” rhetoric, is just another in a series of folks who have tried to convince us that mankind can become the champion of his own kind. We will always have the Nietzsches, the Haeckels, the Marxes, the Sangers; there will always be an atheist/agnostic somewhere, driven by a desire to be known and revered, who will try to ride some contrived utopian philosophy to infamy. And these leaders would be nothing without their followers, those confused and impressionable folks who are united by a sense of injustice and faith in their leader to right the wrongs. They are not monsters, they have just not yet received the grace to recognize the truth of God’s existence, who is the source of goodness itself. Do I judge this group? Hardly. I once considered myself an agnostic too. The road back has been a long one, and I thank God for giving me the grace to travel it. Nothing short of God’s grace will help them see the truth, either.

Many have suffered as a result of these ideas, and many will suffer in the future. I pray for all of these, and those who are at the delivery end of the suffering, because they do not yet realize what they are doing.

Peace - Timotheos