Peter Singer's utilitarian ethics do not threaten society

[guamani]

I do not fear Singer. What I fear is the Animal rights groups that are using his antichristian philosofy to teach love for the animals thru hate for mankind. And what is worst they are pushing laws everyday in congress to control rural society.

The cathechism of the Catholic Church is very Clear about that subject. “It is inmoral to give animals the love that is due to mankind” “It is also inmoral to use the vast amounts money and resouces to defend animals, when it can be used to aleviate the poor and the hungry”

Peter Singer said and I quote:
" If animal rights is going to win, we must destroy the Judeo-Chistian tradition"

That is a very anti-christian statement. In my opinion anyone that gives money to PeTA or the Humane Society of the United States, needs to repent and confess.

Any catholic person that supports them and their laws are supporting an anti-christian movement which ultimate goal is to control what we eat or do with our animals.

If you like veggies, that is fine, just do not try to force it on me.
If they attack KFC is not because they love the chickens, is because they want to destroy KFC so you have less meat to eat and have to eat more Veggies.

Any catholic that supports them, in my opinion, need to repent and confess.
This groups are openly declared agaisnt mankind and the only good will they portray is towards animals.

It is very evil to say that the life of a child is equal in value to the life of a rat. As Ingrid Newkirk said once.

Animal welfare is one good thing but animal rights is an evil concept.

May God bless you all.

 

[manualman]

It is not always necessary to be the most alarmed about the most seriously flawed ideas. Sometimes, a bad idea with huge public support can cause a lot more harm than an horrible idea with no public support.

Who is worse, David Duke or Adolph Hitler? Judging by the content of their ideas alone, there is little to judge between them (IMO). Judging by impact on the world, the difference is enormous!

 

[KathleenElsie]

I do not fear Singer. What I fear is the Animal rights groups that are using his antichristian philosophy to teach love for the animals through hate for mankind. And what is worst they are pushing laws everyday in congress to control rural society.

The catechism of the Catholic Church is very Clear about that subject. “It is immoral to give animals the love that is due to mankind” “It is also immoral to use the vast amounts money and resources to defend animals, when it can be used to alleviate the poor and the hungry”

Peter Singer said and I quote:
" If animal rights is going to win, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian tradition"

That is a very anti-Christian statement. In my opinion anyone that gives money to PeTA or the Humane Society of the United States, needs to repent and confess.

Any catholic person that supports them and their laws are supporting an anti-Christian movement which ultimate goal is to control what we eat or do with our animals.

If you like veggies, that is fine, just do not try to force it on me.
If they attack KFC is not because they love the chickens, is because they want to destroy KFC so you have less meat to eat and have to eat more Veggies.

Any catholic that supports them, in my opinion, need to repent and confess.
This groups are openly declared against mankind and the only good will they portray is twords animals.

It is very evil to say that the life of a child is equal in value to the life of a rat. As Ingrid Newkirk said once.

Animal welfare is one good thing but animal rights is an evil concept.

May God bless you all.

I have to agree with you. Thank you for your post.

 

[jimmy]

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

I have never heard of Richard Lynn until now, but I have heard of Peter Singer. Richard Lynn sounds like a pretty sick guy.

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

Peter Singer isnt a total jerk. In his book *Practical Ethics *
Singer argues that rich nations have a moral obligation to help poor nations. This isnt to different from Liberation Theology.

 

[Jennifer123]

Peter Singer isnt a total jerk. In his book *Practical Ethics *
Singer argues that rich nations have a moral obligation to help poor nations. This isnt to different from Liberation Theology.

Moral obligation? Yes. Liberation Theology? No.

As for Peter Singer, his views on our “moral obligations” are a farce. I would never take moral direction from a man that advocates infanticide.

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

Moral obligation? Yes. Liberation Theology? No.
As for Peter Singer, his views on our “moral obligations” are a farce. I would never take moral direction from a man that advocates infanticide.

Why not? By definition isnt Liberation THeology a system set up that is in response to the neglected poor of the third world.

If Peter singer wrote an artcle about International inequality and the plight of the poor (Premise one)

If Liberation Theology is a system set up to help aid the poor and be responsive to them in third world countries.

Therefore we can conclude that Peter singer’s article is similar to Liberation Theology.

This doesnt mean you have to agree with him over abortion. ALl it means is that there is some common ground.

Peter Singer is pro abortion and likes ice cream
You are pro choice and like ice cream

The fact that you both have a preference for the same treat has no logical connection between your beliefs on abortion. Likewise Peter Singer’s belief in abortion has no relationship to his call to end international poverty. Thus it could be interpreted as Liberation Theology.

 

[mlchance]

Why not? By definition isnt Liberation THeology a system set up that is in response to the neglected poor of the third world.

Liberation theology is all-too-often built on a marxist framework, and it is thus contrary to the faith.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

What do you guys think of Utlitarianism in general? Do you guys actually know what it encompasses?

 

[RyanL]

What do you guys think of Utlitarianism in general? Do you guys actually know what it encompasses?

I know what it encompasses (I’ve read Bentham, Mill, Hart, Singer, Holmes, Dworkin, Austin, Locke, Hume, Kelsen, etc.), and my opinion is as follows:

1. It’s utterly illogical.
2. It’s not practical - i.e., it’s not able to be applied.
3. It’s totally arbitrary.
4. It’s unsound at a foundational level. (This is basically the same criticism as #3, simply carrying the error forward.)
5. It’s completely incompatible with a view that human life is of infinite value. This is to say that it commodifies humans, which is never a good thing. This leads invariably to oppression of the weak. Enter totalitarian dictator comparison, stage right.

Does that answer your question?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[deb1]

Peter Singer is pro abortion and likes ice cream
You are pro choice and like ice cream

The fact that you both have a preference for the same treat has no logical connection between your beliefs on abortion. Likewise Peter Singer’s belief in abortion has no relationship to his call to end international poverty. Thus it could be interpreted as Liberation Theology.

Hitler killed many people, including members of my Mother-in-laws family
Hitler likes dogs.

I think committing genocide is horrific. I like dogs.

Hey, Hitler wasn’t such a bad guy after all. He and I have something in common.

I’m not trying to get snarky with you.

I’ve just heard this defense of Singer repeatedly. '“Yes, he advocates abortion, killing new born infants and that bestiality is all right(He actually does) but he believes in a few good things therefore he is at heart a good person.”

The problem is that some of his views are so evil that the little good that he does belief in can not out weigh the harm he could potentially produce as an ethics professor.

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

Again my point begin is not to argue whether or not Peter Singer is a Saint or the Devil but to demonstrate the parrellels between Liberation Theology and what Peter Singer wrote about arguing against the “Life Boat theory” that states that we cannot let too many countries have access to our foreign aid and help because in doing so the fictious “lifeboat” will over fill. Think of the movie the Titantic and how some people were not permitted to be on the life boat because there was not enough room. Peter Singer wrote this article in 1974 it might be argued that is draconic views on abortion may have been a product of international nihlism towards the poor. This doesnt mean that his opinons are justified but they are just something to think about.

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

I think it is pertinent to add what the Book of Mormon has to say about faith.

Faith is trust. Faith is believing in those things that you are not certain that they exists. Im paraphrasing but i hope you get the point. religious beliefs are simply that religious beliefs and while we can argue some are false and some hold the keys to ultimate truth we should be willing to except the uncertainity of our positions as well as affirm our dogmaticism. Its a paradox. I know but so is the Trinity.

 

[RyanL]

…Peter Singer wrote about arguing against the “Life Boat theory” that states that we cannot let too many countries have access to our foreign aid and help because in doing so the fictious “lifeboat” will over fill. Think of the movie the Titantic and how some people were not permitted to be on the life boat because there was not enough room…

In point of fact, the Titanic had enough lifeboats for 1,200 people. Only 700 people boarded them. Several hundred died needlessly. Would you like to re-examine your parallel?

I think it is pertinent to add what the Book of Mormon has to say about faith.

Why on earth would you think the Book of Mormon would be pertinent?

God Bless,
RyanL