NYT: Should this be the last generation?

[wilbur]

If Singer wants to snuff himself for the good of animals/the Earth / Universe, I'm not going to stop.

But to suggest that we all die in a pool of our own vomit, is beyond stupid; Truth be told Singer would most likely run for cover if his existence were in danger just like every other lifeform on the planet.
How do I know, because he is still alive.

No where in our planet's history has any species ever committed mass suicide; I think the last T-Rex lifted his claw to the Universe, gave it the finger and told cosmos to f*ck itself.

Guys like Singer want us to party till we die, I'll remember to toss my invite in the trash, thank you.

Somebody didn't make it to the end of the article.

[Odysseus]

First off, utilitarianism is not mutually exclusive with rights. Secondly, sex with pre-pubescent children is always harmful, so you're going to have a hard time finding any utilitarian arguments in NAMBLA's favor. So who cares if NAMBLA tries, as you allege, to defend themselves with such statements - they don't actually work. In fact, NAMBLA is slain spectacularly by utilitarian/consequentialist reasoning.

I don't simply allege it. NAMBLA has repeatedly made that argument, drawing from Kinsey's observations of sexual behavior in children. Singer's arguments, which quantifies humanity into those whose "desires" warrant consideration and those whose don't, because they lack the capacity for desire, is entirely inconsistent with a rights-based view in which all people share rights equally. The abortion debate, according to a rights-based perspective, is about whether a fetus has rights, based on its humanity. This can also be argued back and forth, but it assumes that being human confers the basic right of life, and that liberty and the pursuit of happiness follow.

Secondly, I think you need to read him more carefully. He doesn't endorse bestiality, at least not that I have seen. He's raised questions about it, in an open-minded way - but that's not endorsement, that's how good tempered philosophers go about reasoned inquiry. They don't live in the world of pop journalism and politics where sides have to be dogmatically chosen and scathing polemics have to be written. If you approach philosophy that sort of polemical mindset, you're going to get it very badly wrong.

How can you read statements like "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty" and that "mutually satisfying activities" may occur between humans and animals and not conclude that he is giving tacit approval to the practice?

And Singer does live in a world of pop journalism and politics. In fact, he has used the former to influence the latter, to the advantage of political groups such as PETA. To claim that he is somehow "above" the fray as a philosopher would be news to the philosophers of the past, who sought ways to live in the world, not to retreat from it into hypotheticals.

As it is, bestiality is pretty tricky.

Perhaps if you offered a treat and tried to pet the animal first... :D

Right- but he's not claiming that its right or permissible to just off a baby because you feel like it, or that babies are worthless. He's essentially saying it causes demonstrably less *harm* to kill a baby, that it does a being with full blown preferences and desires. Again, that's pretty clear cut.

And I'm saying that the amount of harm is not demonstrably lessened by the choice of a victim who lacks awareness. The baby is certainly harmed as much as an adult would be by the termination of his/her life. The fact that the baby doesn't necessarily understand what is happening doesn't mean that he/she isn't being harmed.

What he does not say, is that its OK to just kill a baby for the heck of it. Again, I think there are fundamental problems with your approach to philosophy. Bad unwarranted assumptions cause you to make straw-man arguments.

Don't you mean "thought experiments?"
Singer doesn't say that it is okay to kill a baby just for the heck of it, but he does say that it is more permissible to kill a baby than a sentient adult. By that logic, it is more permissible to kill a non-sentient adult than a sentient one. Once you accept that premise, then all lives are not equal, and we can eliminate any innocent once we decide what constitutes a life lacking in sufficient value.

You're misstating his positions. He's never argued that we should be able to kill more people than we do already - he argues that we already do kill people, and that *everybody* all ready thinks it's OK.

He argues, in cases where adults have completely lost the capacity to exhibit the essential characteristics of personhood, that removing a feeding tube, respirator, etc is conceptually the same actively killing the being. So he argues that we might as well use more efficient, direct means to quickly kill the person.

Not everybody thinks it's okay. Terry Schiavo was the obvious example. The arguments about her level of cognition were ultimately irrelevent; if she could feel, then removing the feeding tube consigned her to a cruel, slow death by starvation--if she could not feel, then there was no harm in continuing to feed her until her state could be determined by an objective observer. Ultimately, however, the court decided that she could be killed because her "quality of life" (a phrase not found in any law) had deteriorated. At that point, her rights became immaterial, and only the arguments of those around her held sway. Her family wanted her kept alive, but her husband, who had taken up with another woman and exhausted the money from her insurance settlement, wanted her gone. Her life had become inconvenient to him, so he argued that it was not worth living.

You're free to make the case that his paradigm causes this, but I don't think it'd go very well. I couldnt deny that you are a person under his paradigm, nor could you deny that I am a person, and it's pretty clear cut.

Is it? Singer defines the attributes of personhood as " rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness." The eugenicists of the last century began their euthanasia campaign among those that they considered irrational, i.e., the mentally ill, or "feeble-minded." Autonomy, the capacity to act independently, is severely diminished among drug addicts, to cite one example (we are constantly told that their "disease" renders them unable to take responsibility for their actions), the physically impaired (stroke victims, for example) or a host of other conditions. The "feeble in body" were also targeted by the progressive eugenecists for eradication. Self-consciousness is a tough one. How do you define whether or not a creature knows that it exists? DeCartes began with doubt, wondering if he did, in fact, exist, which led to his realization that doubt was a form of thought, and that to think was proof of existence. But we have already shown that those who do not think at the level approved by the Singers of the world, the "feeble-minded," are fodder for the gas chambers.

I'll agree that it is very hard to come up with a criteria for personhood that is exhaustive (that is, it includes all persons), and that excludes all non-persons, but that is OK. It's not very hard to come up with criteria that includes *only* non-persons. For grey areas, we err on the side of personhood. If we accidentally include a few non-persons in the net, so be it.

Want to bet? See below:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Peter Singer does not argue for involuntary euthanasia (at least not of conceptually a different form than what is already widely accepted) , so this is another straw-man.

Singer doesn't argue for it, he simply sets the preconditions for it. It isn't a straw man, it's the logical culmination of his arguments. If all lives are not of equal value, then some may be dispatched more casually than others. Terry Schiavo becomes less worthy of life than you or I, in his world, as does my toddler daughter, as does a less rational or wholly irrational person (a standard that could eliminate most of the current congress and mass media). Life becomes defined by its worth, rather than the rights inherent in our natural order. The animal rights activist who sees no difference between a boy, a pig or an amoeba sees no special sanctity of life of the former.

[Elspeth]

Not everybody thinks it's okay. Terry Schiavo was the obvious example. The arguments about her level of cognition were ultimately irrelevent; if she could feel, then removing the feeding tube consigned her to a cruel, slow death by starvation--if she could not feel, then there was no harm in continuing to feed her until her state could be determined by an objective observer. Ultimately, however, the court decided that she could be killed because her "quality of life" (a phrase not found in any law) had deteriorated. At that point, her rights became immaterial, and only the arguments of those around her held sway. Her family wanted her kept alive, but her husband, who had taken up with another woman and exhausted the money from her insurance settlement, wanted her gone. Her life had become inconvenient to him, so he argued that it was not worth living.

That was how I saw the Sciavo case. The money ran out and it was no longer convenient for the hubby. Her parents had no say. It's different when it's your kid.

[Odysseus]

That was how I saw the Sciavo case. The money ran out and it was no longer convenient for the hubby. Her parents had no say. It's different when it's your kid.

Agreed. Once the husband had abandoned the marriage, he had a clear conflict of interest and the court should have appointed another guardian. That judge's decision was completely without justification, as was the rush to act. Courts are supposed to deliberate and then reach decisions, but it was obvious that the judge had already reached his conclusions and would not hear any evidence to the contrary. The worst thing about this was that if Schiavo were a convicted murderer, the judge would have found that removing the feeding tube violated her due process rights.

When lawyers, who are paid by the hour, demand a rush to judgement, you know that something is up.

[CueSi]

Agreed. Once the husband had abandoned the marriage, he had a clear conflict of interest and the court should have appointed another guardian. That judge's decision was completely without justification, as was the rush to act. Courts are supposed to deliberate and then reach decisions, but it was obvious that the judge had already reached his conclusions and would not hear any evidence to the contrary. The worst thing about this was that if Schiavo were a convicted murderer, the judge would have found that removing the feeding tube violated her due process rights.

When lawyers, who are paid by the hour, demand a rush to judgement, you know that something is up.

Major, you've made it clear that you are too old and too married...but if you have a junior officer that thinks like you, I'd like him posted to me . . . post haste.

:p

~QC

[Odysseus]

Major, you've made it clear that you are too old and too married...but if you have a junior officer that thinks like you, I'd like him posted to me . . . post haste.

:p

~QC

I'll keep my eyes and ears open. What age group are you looking for? ;)

[CueSi]

I'll keep my eyes and ears open. What age group are you looking for? ;)

30- 45. :) My last couple partners were over 40...so yeah.

~QC

[JBG]

This point of view is ultimately selfish. Raising children is tough but ultimately satisfying. It's an excuse to shirk responsiblity.

[jnkbortka]

am I the only one who thinks this article is fucking retarded? if we don't have children, our lives are meaningless! although i am sorta radical as I dont like the idea of birth control...

[linda22003]

am I the only one who thinks this article is fucking retarded? if we don't have children, our lives are meaningless! although i am sorta radical as I dont like the idea of birth control...

I hope the girls you'll date will be well aware of that. :p