Today's 'most influential philosopher'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sebastian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Isn’t he the one who wants parents to be able to look over a baby and decide to kill it if it isn’t what they wanted? Sicko. But that’s what we have in the Ivory Tower of Academia.

Lisa N
 
I read an article–I would guess it was in the last two years–in the NY Times Sunday magazine in which Singer’s opinions were prominently featured. I was horrified. So much so that I specifically remember passing it on to several friends to make them aware of him.

I would hope if we are looking for a modern-day philosopher, we consider our Holy Father. His writings in the last 20 years are prolific, his epistles and encyclicals alone are intellectually challenging, morally coherent, socially responsible and written with compassion as well as comprehension of the conflicting influences of wordly culture and consumerism.
 
40.png
Sebastian:
I never heard of professor Peter Singer before reading this article:
townhall.com/columnists/marvinolasky/printmo20041202.shtml
If he’s influential, he’s an anti-Christ.
Click to expand...
Though his ideas are horrid, at least give him credit for being able to logically think through the implications of various positions.
 
Shows how much I know. I thought the most influential philosopher over the past two decades was Homer Simpson.

DaveBj
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
Though his ideas are horrid, at least give him credit for being able to logically think through the implications of various positions.
Click to expand...
He doesn’t just “think them through” - he promotes them. Another nut is Arnie Naess probably the most inflential philosopher to the envronmental movement who thinnks animals have an equal right to life as a human child and thinks we ought to, in case we have to, sacrifice humans over the animals.

Every field of “science” is today filled with these types - look at the mad science let loose in the fields of cloning and reproduction. Many of them sound more like they ought to be in an instituion with soft walls instead of accepting research grants. They want a field of research without consequences. Another symptom of the permanent childhood/immaturity we have fostered in the “intellectual elite”.
 
Peter Singer is actually a professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. His hiring was opposed by Princeton Students Against Infanticide (see their statement here). He has also been opposed by a disability rights group called Not Dead Yet, who figure that if newborns can be euthanized, the disabled may be next.

Their concern is legitimate. Singer sees no basic difference between humans and animals. He proposes that we postpone granting legal personhood to newborns for several days or weeks, to allow time to evaluate whether they are worth keeping.

It may sound incredible, but the fact that Princeton University has seen fit to hire this man to its Bioethics faculty and promote his ideas shows where we are headed. The Dutch, after all, already are doing involuntary euthanasia of both the newborn and the aged.
 
40.png
HagiaSophia:
He doesn’t just “think them through” - he promotes them. Another nut is Arnie Naess probably the most inflential philosopher to the envronmental movement who thinnks animals have an equal right to life as a human child and thinks we ought to, in case we have to, sacrifice humans over the animals.

Every field of “science” is today filled with these types - look at the mad science let loose in the fields of cloning and reproduction. Many of them sound more like they ought to be in an instituion with soft walls instead of accepting research grants. They want a field of research without consequences. Another symptom of the permanent childhood/immaturity we have fostered in the “intellectual elite”.
Click to expand...
Of course he promotes them. . . and he is definitely a nut. I was referring to his willingness to promote those ideas, since he is honest enough to promote those things which are the logical results of his beliefs.
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
Of course he promotes them. . . and he is definitely a nut. I was referring to his willingness to promote those ideas, since he is honest enough to promote those things which are the logical results of his beliefs.
Click to expand...
Great, now we have moral relativisim raised to an art form? Sorry but he doesn’t back up his conclusions with ANYTHING. There are no “logical” conclusions. You’d have to go through the argument and back it up. He doesn’t. He just spouts off. He’s the world’s greatest expert on his own opinion. So what?

Could be he promotes those ideas to get attention. Like a little boy who rides by “Look ma’ no hands!” I cannot believe what is being taught in colleges these days.

Lisa N
 
40.png
JimG:
It may sound incredible, but the fact that Princeton University has seen fit to hire this man to its Bioethics faculty and promote his ideas shows where we are headed. The Dutch, after all, already are doing involuntary euthanasia of both the newborn and the aged.
Click to expand...
Look how long Chomsky has been at MIT-he must laugh all the way to the bank.
 
The only good thing about Singer is that he does, indeed, follow the reasoning behind abortion to its logical conclusion. Unfortunately, he doesn’t then recoil from the revolting end to that reasoning. So he’s got very slightly more intellectual honesty than most pro-choicers.

Logically, if it’s okay to perform third-trimester abortions, why is infanticide wrong? If we define personhood in terms of concious awareness, then we get to kill all sorts of people!

Sorry for the flippancy. I read part of Should The Baby Live? several years ago, and almost a) threw up, and b) tossed the book out of the window. It’s a justification for infanticide, particularly of Down Syndrome children, whom he doesn’t think are persons. It’s terrifying.
 
Lissla Lissar:
The only good thing about Singer is that he does, indeed, follow the reasoning behind abortion to its logical conclusion. Unfortunately, he doesn’t then recoil from the revolting end to that reasoning. So he’s got very slightly more intellectual honesty than most pro-choicers.

Logically, if it’s okay to perform third-trimester abortions, why is infanticide wrong? If we define personhood in terms of concious awareness, then we get to kill all sorts of people!

Sorry for the flippancy. I read part of Should The Baby Live? several years ago, and almost a) threw up, and b) tossed the book out of the window. It’s a justification for infanticide, particularly of Down Syndrome children, whom he doesn’t think are persons. It’s terrifying.
Click to expand...
I agree Singer is CONSISTENT but I still maintain he doesn’t provide rationale for abortion, infanticide, etc. IOW why would the strong be justified in preying on the weak? Does he suggest we revert to a totally bestial lifestyle? Survival of the fittest, fastest and meanest? I truly don’t think that even an “Intellectual elite” like Singer suggests such a structure for society.

If you’ve read more than the column, can you provide me the actual LOGIC behind Singer’s conclusions? IOW how is society benefitted by allowing infanticide? Is it strictly monetary? Would he extend this philosphy to adults who become disabled, old, feeble? IOW can we kill people in wheelchairs? How about “useless” people? Can we kill the drunk panhandling on the corner? How about the junkie sleeping in a doorway?

How far does Singer go and how does he justify his philosophy?

Lisa N
 
Singer actually gave a talk at the Rutgers philosophy dept yesterday afternoon (I’m a PhD student in the program). His talk was going to be on something philosophical, not about infanticide and the more “practical” consequences of his views. I didn’t go to it - I wasn’t interested in the topic and, to paraphrase the philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe, if someone needs a rational argument to convince them that infanticide is wrong, I do not wish to debate with him, for he shows a corrupt mind. Anyhow, you might be conforted to know that most of the people in my department (future philosophy professors) don’t have alot of respect for Singer. It isn’t usually because of his ethical views, but rather because he’s a public intellectual and seen as a “hack” by us who toil away in obscurity. Chomsky is also viewed in the same way. Maybe it’s just jealousy, but public intellectuals aren’t really liked by most academics.
 
Peter Singer didn’t write that column. It is a report by a Christian writer on a sampling of Singer’s ideas. While I agree with that writer’s assessment, the scope of his article doesn’t allow him to go into great depth in analyzing Singer’s position on things. While Singer’s conclusions are horrendous, we cannot and should not judge his abilities as an intellectual simply on the basis of those conclusions as they were reported in the article.

Logically speaking, the issue with Singer isn’t the validity (validity and truth are two different things) of his conclusions but the truth of the premises his conclusions are derived from.

Apparently, as the article noted, Singer is regarded as being remarkably consistent in his beliefs and in the way he lives. Because of his consistency and his willingness to go where he thinks logic is leading him, his questions have great validity and we as Christians need to address them rather than simply dismissing them as the ravings of a deranged lunatic.

One essay of his that caused me to think a great deal about how I live my life is entitled “The Singer Solution to World Poverty.”

I wrote a short reflection based on this essay. If anyone is interested, they can read it here.
 
40.png
Sebastian:
I never heard of professor Peter Singer before reading this article:
townhall.com/columnists/marvinolasky/printmo20041202.shtml
If he’s influential, he’s an anti-Christ.
Click to expand...
This is the same person who promotes the nonsensical idea that animals are in fact “persons”, like we are, and therefore has “rights”. His ideas would logically lead to the conclusion that killing animals, even for food is equivalent to murder and genocide.

Gerry 🙂
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
Logically speaking, the issue with Singer isn’t the validity (validity and truth are two different things) of his conclusions but the truth of the premises his conclusions are derived from.

Apparently, as the article noted, Singer is regarded as being remarkably consistent in his beliefs and in the way he lives. Because of his consistency and his willingness to go where he thinks logic is leading him, his questions have great validity and we as Christians need to address them rather than simply dismissing them as the ravings of a deranged lunatic.

One essay of his that caused me to think a great deal about how I live my life is entitled “The Singer Solution to World Poverty.”

I wrote a short reflection based on this essay. If anyone is interested, they can read it here.
Click to expand...
I read your essay. While I don’t disagree with Singer in that many of us are not giving everything away and taking up our cross, again I don’t see his argument developed. Singer should explain why SHOULD we sacrifice. He doesn’t. So far I’ve asked three times if anyone understands the BASIS for Singer’s philosophy. You cliam it is “truth” but IMO it seems like total relativism. It’s true if it’s true for ME. So what is it?

Catholics can develop an argument and provide substantiation within sacred texts, tradition, and natural law. Singer has his opinion. On balance, I think the scales are tipped toward the Catholic position.

Any thoughts?
Lisa N
 
Lisa N, Good post. Good thinking. Good conclusion. I do not see a need for Singer…Also I am glad the name was not SAnger.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top