Today's 'most influential philosopher'?

[Jean_Anthony]

The thread is getting too specific about one philosopher. Please stay on topic, everyone. Thank you.

 

[Contarini]

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.

Hiring someone does not constitute approval or promotion of his ideas!

I think it’s a good thing that Singer is out there. Because he is so consistent and unabashed in following through the implications of his ideas, he vindicates what many conservatives have been saying for years–for instance, that pro-choice folks really have no good grounds on which to oppose infanticide.

Ediwn

 

[JimG]

Hiring someone does not constitute approval or promotion of his ideas!

I think it’s a good thing that Singer is out there. Because he is so consistent and unabashed in following through the implications of his ideas, he vindicates what many conservatives have been saying for years–for instance, that pro-choice folks really have no good grounds on which to oppose infanticide.

Ediwn

Quite true. And ideas do have consequences among the general public, even if they originate at Princeton. Many people seem to implicitly recognize–and accept–such ideas. Since abortion is common, and abortion kills humans, there is increased acceptance of killing defective infants, or infirm old people, or the disabled. And since humans are now defined as desirable by their quality rather than their humanity, we don’t mind ordering designer babies and discarding the excess, or making sure that nobody who is ill manages to linger so long as to make life unduly uncomfortable for the rest of us.

 

[bobzills]

For the Law of God is written on the hearts of men, even those who are wicked. .

But what about the law against artificial contraception. Are you sure that this is written in the hearts of all? For example, I read that 70% of all Catholic women of childbearing age have used contraception. If this were written in their hearts not to use it, how come so many Catholic women do not choose the way of the Law of God? And further, many religions assert that it is OK to use artificial contracep;tion. If this is a law of God, why do so many other relgions declare that it is not a sin to use artificial contraception? And I understand that there are Catholci p;riests who are telling their parishoners something similar?

 

[Harmony1988]

Probably Dawkins, he has an army now of the undereducated quoting him.

Strangely enough at the end of a debate with John Lennox, Dawkins who had the final statement said there is a possibility of God existing, but the chances are very minute, or something to that extent. Rather inconsistent in my opinion, but nevertheless he is rather influential on the dimwitted.

His forum is overrun by non-sequitirist, ad hominemists, fallacy of accidentalists and the reverse, yes I know those suffixes don’t really exist, but I changed it a bit to save writing more words =P

 

[Harmony1988]

But what about the law against artificial contraception. Are you sure that this is written in the hearts of all? For example, I read that 70% of all Catholic women of childbearing age have used contraception. If this were written in their hearts not to use it, how come so many Catholic women do not choose the way of the Law of God? And further, many religions assert that it is OK to use artificial contracep;tion. If this is a law of God, why do so many other relgions declare that it is not a sin to use artificial contraception? And I understand that there are Catholci p;riests who are telling their parishoners something similar?

Let’s not forget the part about sin affect people judgements?

Yes it is true there are Catholic priests who say such things, more so in the past when the encyclical was first released.

It appears you are wandering into the “appeal to majority” fallacy, check this up if you have questions, your line of reasoning is invalid, you are under the delusion that just because everyone and other religions say it’s valid, it must be.

In either case, I believe some economists have verified Pope Paul VI’s claims as well as some scientists and people gather statistical evidence to verify Paul VI’s claims on abortions, divorce rates and etc as stated by his encyclical, information on divorce and such are not difficult to come by. Also I believe recently the Ugandan minister for health has released a press statement saying how the decline in the use of Condoms and the promotion of abstinence has decreased the spread of HIV and other STD’s in Uganda.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08072506.html

firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6262

 

[Jean_Anthony]

The thread is going off topic. Please keep to the OP’s topic to be fair to the OP and to those who wish to discuss the thread topic. Thank you all.

 

[Cajetan]

Peter Singer’s philosophy has been massively influential, in particular his work on animal rights.

However, personally, I don’t attach a whole lot of importance to the work of any living philosopher (unless they’re working in the history of philosophy, helping us interpret the doctrines of past masters – in essence, teaching us philosophy). History has not yet had a chance to judge their thought.

 

[DL82]

Singer isn’t a philosopher, he’s a sword-swallower. While serious philosophers will try to come up with a coherent ethics that challenges but agrees with our moral intuitions, and builds upon the works of other philosophers, Singer simply makes a point and says that it is true within the coherence of his system, irrespective of whether our consciences tell us it is repulsive.