“Ordinarily he is insane,” said Heinrich Heine, “but he has lucid moments when he is only stupid.” The 19th century German poet made his observation about a newly appointed ambassador. But his words are even more applicable to a different kind of appointee, the Princeton professor and ethicist Peter Singer.
Singer is often referred to without a hint of irony as an “ethicist.” He is the founding father of the animal liberation movement and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals. He is also a staunch defender of non-voluntary euthanasia, infanticide, and even bestiality (assuming it is consensual). As I’ve written before, if he we were teaching high school he would be unemployable. But the Ivory Tower is more tolerant of idiocy and so the Australian philosopher has been able to secure positions at some of the most elite universities on three continents. He currently holds the DeCamp Professor of Bioethics, University Center for Human Values, Princeton University, a position he was appointed to by Harold Shapiro, the former chair of Bill Clinton's bioethics panel.
In the past I’ve been criticized for railing against Singer without adequately addressing the reason he holds the views he does. As Kevin T. Keith said, “you simply gape at Singer's positions as if they were self-evidently wrong simply because he proceeds from different (and more rationally grounded) premises.” Kevin has a valid complaint. I do assume Singer’s positions are self-evidently wrong because they are, in fact, self-evidently wrong. The Nazis also had “rationally grounded premises” for killing Jews but that does not mean that I need to explain where the Holocaust was "wrong." Defending the killing of newborn disabled children is self-evidently wrong whether it is being advocated in the concentration camps of Germany or in an Ivy-league university in New Jersey.
But I don’t just think that most of Singer’s views are self-evidently wrong, I think they are stupid. Singer may very well be a genius but his arguments often exhibit such a complete lack of intelligence that it is hard to imagine why anyone would take him seriously. Consider, for example, this selection (via Gerard Van der Leun) from Singer’s FAQ:
Q. You have been quoted as saying: "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." Is that quote accurate?
A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person” (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.
Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.
Q. What about a normal baby? Doesn’t your theory of personhood imply that parents can kill a healthy, normal baby that they do not want, because it has no sense of the future?
A. Most parents, fortunately, love their children and would be horrified by the idea of killing it. And that’s a good thing, of course. We want to encourage parents to care for their children, and help them to do so. Moreover, although a normal newborn baby has no sense of the future, and therefore is not a person, that does not mean that it is all right to kill such a baby. It only means that the wrong done to the infant is not as great as the wrong that would be done to a person who was killed. But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it.
Q. Elderly people with dementia, or people who have been injured in accidents, may also have no sense of the future. Can they also be killed?
A. When a human being once had a sense of the future, but has now lost it, we should be guided by what he or she would have wanted to happen in these circumstances. So if someone would not have wanted to be kept alive after losing their awareness of their future, we may be justified in ending their life; but if they would not have wanted to be killed under these circumstances, that is an important reason why we should not do so.
If you found it difficult to follow the internal logic of the argument it is because there is none to be found. Singer tends to make it up as he goes along, tossing out a controversial premise but then refusing to follow it to the rational conclusion. Singer claims that babies aren’t “persons” and therefore are of less worth than other humans. But then he claims that this doesn’t mean that it’s all right to kill such a child. Why not? He doesn’t give any reason. This lack of internal logic or consistency is a common weakness of Singer's ethical views. Even though he espouses a form of utilitarianism – one of the most ignorant ethical theories ever devised – he often backs away from the utilitarian justifications when he finds they offend his sensibilities.
Take, for example, his criterion for “personhood.” According to Singer’s definition, a "person" refers to a being that is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. The problem with this definition is that a human being ceases to be a “person” when they are unconscious, temporarily comatose, or even just asleep. This leads to the absurd conclusion that a human stops being a “person” when they go to bed at night and yet wake in the morning with their status as a person fully renewed.
Instead of explaining why anyone should accept such a silly notion, Singer simply skips ahead to explain the practical application. But this leads to another absurd conclusion. What if Singer were in a funk over losing his girlfriend and lay on his couch to take a nap. While drifting off to sleep he whines that he “wished he’d never been born” and “wishes he could just die.” Imagine also that a grad student walks by and overhears these mutterings. According to Singer’s view, the student would be justified in killing the ethicist in his sleep since (a) by falling asleep he had ceased to be a person and (b) he had expressed a desire to not exist. The grad student may not be able to convince a jury, but he would certainly be consistently applying Singer’s “practical ethics.”
I believe that it would be both exceedingly charitable and technically correct to refer to Singer’s definition of personhood as stupid. I don’t use the word often, preferring not to resort to such academic jargon. But sometimes there is simply no other word to describe such ill-conceived sophistry being passed off as philosophy. Most of the time I think that Singer’s practical ethics border on being insanely evil. On rare occasion, though, he does have moments of mild lucidity. It is then that his views manage to rise to the level of mere stupidity.
Addendum: Since it is inevitable that someone will claim that Singer’s definition could still exclude newborn infants, let me provide a preemptive response by citing an article by Francis Beckwith:
In response, the abortion advocate, not wanting to abandon his personhood criteria, may argue that the analogy between sleeping/unconscious/comatose persons and fetuses breaks down because the former at one time in their existence functioned as persons and will probably do so in the future, while the latter did not. But this point seems to ignore the significant flaw in defining personhood strictly in terms of function. For to claim that a human being can be functional, become non-functional, and then return to a state of function is to assume that there is some underlying personal unity to this individual. Thus, it is intelligible for us to say that the person who has returned to functional capacity is the same person who was functional prior to being in a non-functional state and yet continued to exist while not functioning. If not, then we would have to make the absurd claim that a new "person" has popped into existence and that the original "person" ceased to exist upon the cessation of his personhood functions. If, however, we were to identify both the first person and the second person with the human organism from which these personal functions have arisen, then the human person is the human organism as long as the human organism exists.Related:
1
Singer is an exemplar of an interesting phenomenon that has manifested itself in the careers of a number of other academics as well. Having been an academic (albeit in engineering departments), I have noted the phenomenon grow over the years.
Think about this: suppose you, a physicist, were transported from 1900 to 2000. Suppose further that I told you that we have discovered that gravity can bend light and that, if you were accelerated to near-light speeds, your mass would increase to near-infinity. Or that subatomic "particles" were neither particles nor waves, but both. Or that we had invented "tunneling" electronic components that relied on the wave/particle conundrum.
You would, naturally, be astonished. Not ony are these things counterintuitive to us today, but they would be unimaginably counterintuitive to you. And the people who came up with these notions are among the most famous people of the 20th century.
Hence the hunger among academicians for making counterintuitive claims.
Now, in the physical sciences and engineering, it is more difficult to make such astonishing claims. After all, the universe must play along with your notions and actually behave in counterintuitive ways. Empirical data that support your view must be collected by many investigators. Most counterintuitive claims are, in the end, shown to be false (think: cold fusion, perpetual motion, etc.).
However, in the humanities and soft "sciences", it is much easier. Philosophy and law are easiest of all, if one is highly verbal. One need only construct an argument. Counterintuitive drivel is fascinating, like the "theory" behind homeopathic medicine (did you know that water molecules have memory?), and attract adherents like flies to sugar.
Why would reputable universities hire craven purveyors of counterintuitivity? Because they become famous. Had Singer's lunatic notions not served as the midwife to the equally lunatic animal rights "movement", and had he never become famous, I doubt he would be living in Princeton.
posted on 03.14.2005 7:55 AM2
Instead of explaining why anyone should accept such a silly notion, Singer simply skips ahead to explain the ...
Actually what he says is:
A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person” (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have said in answer to the previous question, ...
For purposes of the interview you cite he does indeed skips over his odd definition of a person but he references his book(?) which I assume goes into much more detail on his definition of a person as a beign who knows the difference between the future and the present. I suspect Singer probably also addresses your silly argument about people who happen to be taking a nap ceasing to exist as persons.
A more interesting argument against Singer might be how does he know that infants cannot tell the difference between the future and the present and don't want to live (wanting to live does imply understanding the concept of the future, if you could only understand the present then 'wanting to live' is absurd...is you're wanting anything you're alive and if you mean you want to be alive tomorrow or next minute then you understand the future by definition!). Since we don't know but we do know at some unknown point babies must cross from not understanding the future to understanding it precaution would tell us to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I think what Joe doesn't get is that Singer is one of those people who are more useful being wrong. Their 'in your face' conclusions get people's blood pumping but if they were just absurd (like that guy who called the 9/11 victims 'little Eichmans') it would lead to nothing but anger. Singer probably teaches quite a bit of philosophy by causing people to try to prove him wrong.
However, in the humanities and soft "sciences", it is much easier. Philosophy and law are easiest of all, if one is highly verbal. One need only construct an argument. Counterintuitive drivel is fascinating, like the "theory" behind homeopathic medicine (did you know that water molecules have memory?), and attract adherents like flies to sugar.
Why would reputable universities hire craven purveyors of counterintuitivity? Because they become famous. Had Singer's lunatic notions not served as the midwife to the equally lunatic animal rights "movement", and had he never become famous, I doubt he would be living in Princeton.
Ahhh, spoken like someone who not has neglected to read anything Singer wrote but probably has never read anything regarding ethics, philosophy and so on. Hence he thinks it is all 'obvious' and anything couterintuitive must be due to people trying to draw attention to themselves by grandstanding.
In reality Joe has not presented a case for Singer being stupid. Singer's conclusions do follow if you accept his definition and his premises:
1. It is wrong to kill a person.
2. A person is a beign "who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future."
3. Newborns cannot anticipate the future.
4. Therefore killing newborns does not violate #1, however it is usually wrong for other reasons.
If Joe was right & Singer was just stupid then his problems would be with #4. Singer is not stupid, however, so his faults lie with #2 & #3. (I assume we all generally agree with #1).
3
I am amused by the claims that Peter Singer is 'self-evidently' wrong and makes 'counterintuitive' arguments, as if appeals to intuition and self-evidence were any useful guide to right and wrong. It was not so long ago, for instance, that many Christians considered that slavery was self-evidently, intuitively and Biblically right. Reading a little Civil War history will confirm this adequately. Earlier, Thomas Aquinas explained that murder was wrong because killing one of God's (human) creatures did Him a great wrong, just as you did a slaveowner a great wrong if you killed one of his slaves. But now, of course, our intuition is better, and we know right from wrong without having to give it any thought!
posted on 03.14.2005 10:51 AM4
the bigger problem is that Joe cannot even understand the arguments he is criticizing. That doesn't make the arguments correct but it does make him wrong.
posted on 03.14.2005 10:52 AM5
Singer is just another religious fanatic in the culture of Death that seems to be growing popular these days. Whether it's NOW's drive for abortion on demand, starving Terri Schiavo, the Netherlands murdering babies, the insane rhetoric from the embryonic stem cell research crowd, or Peta Singer's nonsense, respect for Life is becoming passé. The 20th century (among others) ought to have taught a valuable lesson about what happens when society stops valuing life, but oh how quickly we forget. If I was Jewish, I'd be stocking-piling weapons right about now.
posted on 03.14.2005 11:12 AM6
Of course in this world of 'unvalued life' we have driven infant mortality to its lowest point in recorded history, kept elderly people alive longer than ever before...up to the point where it actually makes sense to debate whether resources should be used to add another month to life, and go into spasms over 100 civilian deaths in a full scale tank battle (or 1,000 military casualities in an entire war).
Turn back the clock 50 years or so and 1,000 dead would be an exceptionally good day in a war, mass incineration of civilian cities was the norm, infant mortality and childhood death was commonplace and few people lived long enough to even become an invalid.
posted on 03.14.2005 11:38 AM7
I think war casualities and infant mortality rates are a non sequiter. You're talking about technology advances that are allowing wanted human lives to be lived longer. There is no question that our technology is much better, and thus we are losing fewer people to disease and battle.
However, I would like to do a comparison between 50 years ago in America, how many people thought that assisting a suicide was noble or murdering an unwanted fetus was a basic human right or that euthanasia is a societal good.
I defy you to make that case that the culture of today is trending towards a respect for life and living. I maintain that the culture, the Peter Singers and the NOWs and the NARALs and the Netherlands and the Million Dollar Baby's are all moving us towards a culture that embraces death, legitimizes suicide, lauds assisted suicide, champions the death of unwanted or non-useful infants.
Yet again, we see a culture that wants to rid itself of useless eaters, undesirables, inferior lives. As I said, if I was Jewish, I'd be getting a little nervous right now, because we all know who gets the shaft when societies start getting rid of undesirables.
posted on 03.14.2005 12:42 PM8
I think what Joe doesn't get is that Singer is one of those people who are more useful being wrong. Their 'in your face' conclusions get people's blood pumping but if they were just absurd (like that guy who called the 9/11 victims 'little Eichmans') it would lead to nothing but anger. Singer probably teaches quite a bit of philosophy by causing people to try to prove him wrong.
Boon, it seems like you're just trying to be a contrarian here. You can't really be serious. You do know, of course, that many of Singer's students, just as many of Churchill's students, actually believe what he is saying. Certainly there is no excuse for intellectual laziness on behalf of his students; but let's face it, not everybody is destined to be a philosopher. And many of the things they take with them after schooling are just the uncensored and unfiltered ideas of their professors. Even that is somewhat beside the point; Singer was not hired, I'm failry sure, to throw out absurd ideas for the purpose of "getting students to think."
posted on 03.14.2005 1:07 PM9
Singer himself says that he is a utilitarian, and his ethical positions are consistent with ground broken by John Stuart Mill and his followers. The difficulty with Singer's arguments is that actions that may be in the best interests of an individual may not be in the best interests of society at large. But in Mill's and Singer's world, individual happiness is always the trump card, always the end that justifies the means.
Thus, though Singer's positions advocating infanticide, euthanasia, beastiality, animal rights, etc. seem radical, they grow predictably from his beliefs. Utilitarian is utterly subjective, and hence there is no clear, bright line that prevents any number of behaviors that are seen to advance the interests of an individual, even if those interests are damaging to the community.
Utilitarianism is a ruthlessly logical, utterly Darwinian philosophy. Where it fails is that it always sets the strong against the weak, and makes survival and pleasure the ultimate good in the universe. It breeds conflict and feeds on power.
posted on 03.14.2005 1:10 PM10
Now you're just going to think I'm picking on you:
Of course in this world of 'unvalued life' we have driven infant mortality to its lowest point in recorded history, kept elderly people alive longer than ever before...up to the point where it actually makes sense to debate whether resources should be used to add another month to life, and go into spasms over 100 civilian deaths in a full scale tank battle (or 1,000 military casualities in an entire war).
You know as well as I do that the vast majority of people going into spasms about the 1,000 military casualties aren't doing so for the sake of the dead.
Second, I don't know if I'd use the quote "culture of death" so much as I would call this a culture of comfort. I think thats evident by the number of debates going on in the medical ethics community centered around "quality of life" over life itself.
posted on 03.14.2005 1:16 PM11
I find the 'respect life' crowd's bashing of Million Dollar Baby to be more than a little annoying. It indicates their inability to appreciate life for anything beyond their narrow ideological ends (namely their refussal to appreciate a moving story, instead they insist that everything must have a message that either supports or attacks their ideology).
Regardless, the reason the question of euthansia has come up is not because society has suddenly gotten tired of sick people but that society has put so much research into extending life that we now have large numbers of people who are able to exist in extended vegatative states plus what used to have been relatively quick killers like cancer can now be held at bay for months and years but with the cost of great pain and suffering.
These developments happened because society invested the money to push the line. Not because society suddenly decided to embrace death. The fact is that Christianity has a healthy and positive view of death. It should be a natural end to this life and the beginning of a much longer existence that makes this brief stay in the universe look like the blink of an eye.
It is healthy sometimes to embrace death. Christianity, for a longtime, has used its martyers as examples. Patrick Henry's famous "give me liberty or give me death" implies the idea that some things make life worth living and without them it literally is not worth living [ditto Vermont's motto "live free or die"]. (This thought is echoed in the Bible as well...whoever will save their life shall lose it). On the flip side there is something ghoulish about worshipping nothing more than a heartbeat as the only important thing in the world. This isn't to say euthansia is a good idea or that the Netherlands has a good policy on it. I agree with pro-lifers who point out that the policies have often been used as an easy way out and cause people to overlook viable solutions to pain and suffering.
Take war as another example. Yes we are losing fewer people on the 'wanted' side (ours) but if we really did not value the lives of our enemies we wouldn't see the dramatic decline in enemy casualities as well. If the US coupled its current technology with the tactics it used in WWII there would be tens of millions of Iraqis dead today. Instead we have committees that literally include lawyers that have to ok the use of precision missiles fired by drones on individual terrorists.
posted on 03.14.2005 1:17 PM12
Beckwith
"If, however, we were to identify both the first person and the second person with the human organism from which these personal functions have arisen, then the human person is the human organism as long as the human organism exists."
This is absurd. Try taking that argument to its logical conclusion. You don't even get halfway around the block.
Singer:
"Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. ... I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely."
If I'm a baby suffering from interminable pain and doomed to live a short life where I constantly depend on machines for the most basic needs, I'm saying: end it.
And that's what I'll say when I'm 100 and enduring the same situation.
Now, if a majority of people in my country who understand what interminable pain and suffering is feel the way that I do, then the morally correct thing for those people to do is to pass legislation which facilitates the process and ensure that it is carried out only under the most dire circumstances.
Of course, under less dire circumstances, many parents of severely ill (e.g., brainless) children will continue to do what they do presently in their own homes. And their doctors who know the horrors that nature can bestow on human parents will do the right thing and look away.
posted on 03.14.2005 1:22 PM13
Patrick
"I maintain that the culture, the Peter Singers and the NOWs and the NARALs and the Netherlands and the Million Dollar Baby's are all moving us towards a culture that embraces death, legitimizes suicide, lauds assisted suicide, champions the death of unwanted or non-useful infants."
Or we are moving towards a culture that has a meaningful understanding of human dignity. Maybe we'll actually become a peace-loving country instead of a war-making country. Wouldn't that be great?
Earlier in my life, I would have felt certain that every Christian would agree with me that a peace-loving country that doesn't kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians "just in case" is better than a war-mongering country that anhiliates others and justifies its actions to its own citizens with lies.
Now I know better.
posted on 03.14.2005 1:27 PM14
I suspect Singer probably also addresses your silly argument about people who happen to be taking a nap ceasing to exist as persons.
Sleeping aside, what about Joe's point regarding the temporarily comatose? What about those with catatonic schizophrenia, psychotic induced hallucinations or any number of mental illnesses that hinder their ability to have a reasonable anticipation of the future? Furthermore, what about an infant's anticipation of being fed? Isn't that a desire for a future event even though the infant may not be capable of expressing it as such?
posted on 03.14.2005 1:33 PM15
You do know, of course, that many of Singer's students, just as many of Churchill's students, actually believe what he is saying. Certainly there is no excuse for intellectual laziness on behalf of his students; but let's face it, not everybody is destined to be a philosopher.
I know no such thing Mr. Ed. Where are Singer's students who defend his philosophy from his critics? Certainly if they 'believe' him they would do so. There's no end of students who defend and argue for the various conclusions reached by other schools of thought. It's interesting that you speak of intellectual laziness along with students who 'believe' various teachers. You should not be believing anything. You should be able to defend and argue a position.
And many of the things they take with them after schooling are just the uncensored and unfiltered ideas of their professors. Even that is somewhat beside the point; Singer was not hired, I'm failry sure, to throw out absurd ideas for the purpose of "getting students to think."
I never said they were absurd. I said Singer's ideas, at least as presented by Joe, are not absurd but well reasoned and logical. That doesn't mean they are correct. What students take with them isn't the point here. I think it is fair to assume anyone who can make it into and through Princeton should be exposed to a huge range of ideas and be able to defend their positions if they are ever called to do so.
Utilitarianism is a ruthlessly logical, utterly Darwinian philosophy. Where it fails is that it always sets the strong against the weak, and makes survival and pleasure the ultimate good in the universe. It breeds conflict and feeds on power.
Most philsophy texts treat utilitarianism as a 'basic' or 'simple' ethical system. It has a lot to be said for it. It basically is the foundation of capitalism and the market economy. It was sufficient to overturn thousands of years of needless suffering and persecution from those who thought they had a divine duty to force their opinions on others.
It is subjective in the sense that it places value on what individuals want and individual wants are indeed subjective. However even Singer's philsophy doesn't pit the strong against the weak. Singer's philsophy would say that anyone who qualifies to be a person should not be harmed. This is not all that different from Christian ethics who would say you shouldn't harm those with a soul... In both systems you are in a pretty bad position if you are not deemed to quailify as a 'person' (animals in todays society are treated with a lot of cruelity...even if they don't have souls are they just machines that you can treat however you want?).
Singer raises a powerful question of how do you define a person worthy of respect. Christian thelogy basically says a person is a person as long as they are alive since that is when their soul is in their body. Is that sufficient in a world where science has started to explore the regions between life and death?
You know as well as I do that the vast majority of people going into spasms about the 1,000 military casualties aren't doing so for the sake of the dead.
Then what are they complaining about?
posted on 03.14.2005 1:33 PM16
Larry -
I don't see any dignity in suicide as a means of pain- or unpleasantness-avoidance. I don't see any dignity in women getting knocked up and then killing the baby for convenience. I don't see any dignity in parents having a child with disabilities and deciding that they don't want that life to be lived.
Maybe you and I just have different ideas of what is dignified.
And I will tell you what, I'm much more comfortable with innocent people being unintentionally killed during a battle with a brutal and demonic dictator than innocent people being killed intentionally because they are inconvenient or because society gets to arbitrarily decide what kind of life is worth living.
Do you really not see a difference between accidental casualities in the War on Terror and intentional casualities in the War on Fetuses?
(P.S. Saddam killed many times more Iraqis than we ever could or would. A small number of people died by accident to prevent millions from dying on purpose.)
posted on 03.14.2005 1:44 PM17
I know no such thing Mr. Ed. Where are Singer's students who defend his philosophy from his critics? Certainly if they 'believe' him they would do so.
You can find glowing reviews of Singer on various vegan and animal liberation websites.
I never said they were absurd. I said Singer's ideas, at least as presented by Joe, are not absurd but well reasoned and logical. That doesn't mean they are correct. What students take with them isn't the point here. I think it is fair to assume anyone who can make it into and through Princeton should be exposed to a huge range of ideas and be able to defend their positions if they are ever called to do so.
Wait, what students take with them isn't the point? Well, then what is the point of hiring a professor? And if these students are so smart when they reach Princeton why have classes in philosophy at all? Shoulnd't they just hold a series of debates?
posted on 03.14.2005 1:44 PM18
Patrick
"Maybe you and I just have different ideas of what is dignified."
I'm sure that it is the case at the fringes of the concept.
But following up on Boonton's post, we probably agree that human dignity can be measured at some level based on how we treat non-humans.
Does anyone here want to say that torturing an animal for fun is okay? Does it matter if it is a monkey or cat or an ant or a worm or an amoeba or a bacterium? If so, why or why not?
How about just blowing the animal away quickly and painlessly? OK for all circumstances for all animals? Or just some animals some of the time?
These are real questions with real-world applicability. Animals are tortured and/or killed every day. Are there real world answers? Or are we forced to consult some ancient writings to determine what someone's deity thinks about such behavior?
Note to Patrick: I'm not touching your bizarre statements justifying so-called "accidental" deaths of civilians in so-called "wars" (to the extent the two recent one-sided attacks on Iraq can be considered "wars"). Those statements demonstrate a strong capacity for something that I'll call "self-delusion," for lack of a more accurate term.
19
George you're absolutely right. The line between 'infamy' and 'fame' is faint indeed to the sociopath and the ruthlessly ambitious.
George wrote:
"...Not only are these things counterintuitive to us today,... the people who came up with these notions are among the most famous people of the 20th century.
Hence the hunger among academicians for making counterintuitive claims.
Now, in the physical sciences and engineering,... Empirical data that support your view must be collected by many investigators. Most counterintuitive claims are, in the end, shown to be false (think: cold fusion, perpetual motion, etc.).
However, in the humanities and soft "sciences", it is much easier. Philosophy and law are easiest of all, if one is highly verbal. One need only construct an argument.
Counterintuitive drivel is fascinating,... and attract adherents like flies to sugar.
Why would reputable universities hire craven purveyors of counterintuitivity? Because they become famous..."
posted on 03.14.2005 2:16 PM20
Sleeping aside, what about Joe's point regarding the temporarily comatose? What about those with catatonic schizophrenia, psychotic induced hallucinations or any number of mental illnesses that hinder their ability to have a reasonable anticipation of the future? Furthermore, what about an infant's anticipation of being fed? Isn't that a desire for a future event even though the infant may not be capable of expressing it as such?
That's a valid question however Joe pretends that Singer just slipped his definition into the mix without ever explaning it. In fact he references his book Practical Ethics. Presumably Singer elaborates on his unusual definition of personhood in that book and addresses obvious questions such as those who are asleep, temporarily comatose and so on.
If Singer doesn't address those issues in the book he referenced then Joe should mention that. Instead Joe acts as if Singer's entire philosophy can be analyzed from the brief interview snippet he quotes. That might be a somewhat viable position if the person being interviewed didn't say "I have an unusual definition of X which I explain in detail in book Y"!
I agree with you that if we use Singer's definition we have to address the problem of how can we know what an infant is able to anticipate. Logic tells me we should err on the side of caution and assume the infant meets the definition unless it can be proven otherwise.
And I will tell you what, I'm much more comfortable with innocent people being unintentionally killed during a battle with a brutal and demonic dictator than innocent people being killed intentionally because they are inconvenient or because society gets to arbitrarily decide what kind of life is worth living.
Unintentionally killing isn't really the issue since it is by definition unintentional. However the low civilian casualities in modern war are intenionally low. It takes a lot of effort to drop thousands of tons of bombs and not kill lots of people. Likewise the massive civialian deaths in WWII cannot be called unintentional. What meaning can the word have if it allows you to firebomb a whole city or use an atomic bomb and claim the civilian deaths were 'unintentional'???
Sorry Phil, the great decrease in 'unintentional' deaths in war is due to a very intentional increase in the respect for life.
You can find glowing reviews of Singer on various vegan and animal liberation websites.
So what? I asked you for examples of his students who 'believe' what he teaches without question. See what you wrote right after this!
Wait, what students take with them isn't the point? Well, then what is the point of hiring a professor? And if these students are so smart when they reach Princeton why have classes in philosophy at all? Shoulnd't they just hold a series of debates?
That vegan and animal liberation websites gave his book glowing reviews is irrelevant (and for the record those reviews were most likely centered on his support for animal rights as opposed to his views on killing infants or the handicapped). You are having trouble understanding the difference between being wrong and being stupid. It is possible to have a powerful argument but be wrong without being stupid. Marx had a powerful critique of capitalism that was wrong but not stupid. The luddites also had an argument but a stupid one.
To use an example from science, the earth-centered model of the solar system was wrong for those who have studied its history and development it was not created or supported by stupid people for stupid reasons. My point is simple, sometimes people who are wrong teach more than people who are correct. IMO Singer is quite useful because challenging his conclusions requires good skills and a keen mind.
21
To keep it short and simple,
The author's arguments against singer, are in fact an excellent argument against the author's arguments against singer, as per:
"If you found it difficult to follow the internal logic of [Joe's Argument] it is because there is none to be found. [Joe] tends to make it up as he goes along, tossing out a controversial premise but then refusing to follow it to the rational conclusion."
posted on 03.14.2005 3:01 PM22
Indeed it is interesting that people here who are eager to dismiss Singer for spouting 'counterintuitive drivel' are themselves ignoring any attempt to engage in a rational argument. The only attempt Joe makes to engage Singer's philosophy is to attack his definition of a person, which is a valid argument except he makes it clear he doesn't understand Singer's definition & has no interest in doing so.
At its base Joe's argument seems to be 'something is wrong if it violates my gut feelings'. If he thinks that is philosophy then he is a far greater danger to students than a thousand Singers. Gut feelings are only a basis for starting to construct an argument. And no, serious arguments cannot easily be constructed to 'support anything'. The fact that very few people on this list are able to construct serious arguments demonstrates this nicely.
posted on 03.14.2005 3:16 PM23
Before we debate Singer's definition in more detail, Joe should have provided this part of Singer's FAQ:
Q. What should I read to learn more?A. You might like to start with one of the two collections of my work in print, Writings on an Ethical Life, or Unsanctifying Human Life. After that, your choice should depend on what particular issues most interest you. For my views about animals, see Animal Liberation. The fullest statement of my critique of the traditional doctrine of the sanctity of human life is in Rethinking Life and Death, and the most elaborated philosophical elaboration of my views is Practical Ethics.
These books are in many libraries. They can also be ordered from bookstores, or from online retailers like Amazon and Barnes and Noble.
Let us keep sight of the argument Joe began here. Joe argued that Singer was not just wrong but stupid.
If you found it difficult to follow the internal logic of the argument it is because there is none to be found. Singer tends to make it up as he goes along, tossing out a controversial premise but then refusing to follow it to the rational conclusion. Singer claims that babies aren’t “persons” and therefore are of less worth than other humans. But then he claims that this doesn’t mean that it’s all right to kill such a child. Why not? He doesn’t give any reason. This lack of internal logic or consistency is a common weakness of Singer's ethical views. Even though he espouses a form of utilitarianism – one of the most ignorant ethical theories ever devised – he often backs away from the utilitarian justifications when he finds they offend his sensibilities.
But of course Singer does provide a reason, the source of this information comes from an FAQ of his philosophy. Any brief FAQ on a philsopher is going to gloss over things quickly.
But that's ok because Joe tells us this is 'common' to Singers philsophy. No doubt Joe has read some of the references Singer cited as going into more detail on his views of human life. Perhaps Joe would be so kind as to enlighten us on them and how they reinforce the argument he has presented!
posted on 03.14.2005 3:55 PM24
If Singer doesn't address those issues in the book he referenced then Joe should mention that. Instead Joe acts as if Singer's entire philosophy can be analyzed from the brief interview snippet he quotes. That might be a somewhat viable position if the person being interviewed didn't say "I have an unusual definition of X which I explain in detail in book Y"!
But it wasn't just any snippet, Boon. It was a snippet wherein Singer was trying to explain the nuances of his theory based on his definition of a "person". So it seems reasonable to expect that he would give a fairly comprehensive, if succinct, defense of his theory. And I think he does just that with this statement:
"So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents."
This statement seems pretty unequivocal. An infant's value is not intrinsic at all. It's value as a life is inseperable from it's value to another human being.
posted on 03.14.2005 4:29 PM25
Boonton:
You say: It [utilitarianism] basically is the foundation of capitalism and the market economy.
Horsepoppies. Utilitarianism is the brainchild of Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832). He was a lawyer, although he failed to establish a practice of law. Capitalism and markets were quite lively in England before Bentham was born. Perhaps you've heard of Adam Smith. Did you know there were capital markets in Pompeii?
It was sufficient to overturn thousands of years of needless suffering and persecution from those who thought they had a divine duty to force their opinions on others.
Piffle. Bentham's nemesis was Blackstone (author, Commentaries on the Laws of England). Blackstone's work was very influential in British common law and in the the establishment of law in America (via the Constitution and Bill of Rights, note First Amendment, religious freedom). Bentham basically believed that individual rights must be subsumed to some common good, or utility. His work fails logically because there is no person or persons who is qualified to make the ultimate judgments about utility (although Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the rest of the usual suspects believed they could). Bentham had fevered dreams of inventing a "calculus" for utility, but he foundered on the necessity to quantify his delusions (a typical fate of the verbal theorizers).
As Nozick noted: "The usual reaction of students towards Utilitarianism is that it makes perfect sense." There's no shortage of consumers in the tommyrot market.
26
Larry (or do you prefer Leopold?),
For crying out loud man, his name is PHIL! P-H-I-L. Say it with me now: "PHIIIILLLLLL". Very good.
Do you even READ the comments anymore before responding, or do you just skip right to the non sequiturs to save time?
And who the heck is Patrick? You called him that several times. I mean, from Phil to Paul is not that big a leap, but Patrick? Is he that straw man you're always responding to instead of the arguments?
And here I was, thinking that everyone wanted to ban you because of your comments. Silly me.
posted on 03.14.2005 5:15 PM27
So it seems reasonable to expect that he would give a fairly comprehensive, if succinct, defense of his theory.
Really? In a FAQ where he once acknowledges his definition of a person is unusual and explained in another work and again where he informs people where to find additional explanation! Remember, Joe said glossing over things and a lack of internal logic or consistency was a common weakness of Singer.
1. Joe's examples of 'internal' problems reference items that are almost certainly addressed in Singer's outside reference.
2. Joe provides us with no guidence as to Singer's positions in these outside references despite the implication that he is familiar with them (otherwise how can Joe say this is 'common' with Singer? Is he basing that on just reading a single Singer FAQ article?).
3. Joe provides us with no examples of internal inconsistency utilizing the definition Singer provides. In other words, Singer is logical it's the definition that Joe has a gripe with.
This statement seems pretty unequivocal. An infant's value is not intrinsic at all. It's value as a life is inseperable from it's value to another human being.
Interesting Mr. Ed., you seem to have reading problems too ;) Singer doesn't state that an infant's life has no intrinsic value, he states that an infant's life is not equal in value to another human beign. I'll grant, though, that Singer may say that elsewhere in his work but unless you guys are pulling from something other than what Joe quoted it isn't there!
posted on 03.14.2005 5:22 PM28
Horsepoppies. Utilitarianism is the brainchild of Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832). He was a lawyer, although he failed to establish a practice of law. Capitalism and markets were quite lively in England before Bentham was born. Perhaps you've heard of Adam Smith. Did you know there were capital markets in Pompeii?
So what? If you're going to be technical then you can argue that utilitarianism is a philsophical underpinning of the articulated theory of capitalism. Naturally capitalism existed before anyone laid its workings out on paper.
posted on 03.14.2005 5:27 PM29
Horsepoppies. Utilitarianism is the brainchild of Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832). He was a lawyer, although he failed to establish a practice of law. Capitalism and markets were quite lively in England before Bentham was born. Perhaps you've heard of Adam Smith. Did you know there were capital markets in Pompeii?
I can see how Boon would make the mistake but Capitalist and Free Market systems treasure one thing that no true Utilitarian could accept: private property. That's because an accumulation of private property by one individual is not seen as bringing the maximum happiness to the most people.
posted on 03.14.2005 5:29 PM30
You know, I used to think that for every kooky liberal there was a kooky conservative. I'm not sure anymore that's true and maybe I'll never know. One thing I do know, however: conservatives do not put their kooks in places of honor, like chairmanships at major universities(Princeton and Colorado), or seats of honor at the Republican National Convention (Michael Moore). Liberals have forgotten what the words self-evident means.
posted on 03.14.2005 5:31 PM31
Joe's examples of 'internal' problems reference items that are almost certainly addressed in Singer's outside reference.
Okay, aren't you basically making the same mistake, but at the opposite end of the argument, as you claim Joe is? I mean, you're telling us that Singer 'almost certainly addresses' the issues Joe raised. But you are saying it without reading Singer's materials. It's fine to say that Joe is making a mistake by judging Singer's work from a single interview. But isn't it also a mistake to defend his work (not his theories, but his work) based on the same interview?
Interesting Mr. Ed., you seem to have reading problems too ;) Singer doesn't state that an infant's life has no intrinsic value, he states that an infant's life is not equal in value to another human beign. I'll grant, though, that Singer may say that elsewhere in his work but unless you guys are pulling from something other than what Joe quoted it isn't there!
He says it right there, Boon! Here, I'll post it again:
It is, [usually terrible] but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents."posted on 03.14.2005 5:40 PMNow, how do you understand this other than that an infant's value is based soley upon it's worth to it's parents?
32
Notice Singer's backwards reasoning, though: He starts with a premise (it's wrong to kill a person). He then looks for distinguishing characteristics of persons (the various attributes discussed herein) and then goes about looking for things (infants, etc.) that do not fit these criteria and which therefore can be killed.
The unnamed elephant in the room: he starts with a premise that cannot be proved using his own reasoning. So it's correct to say that Singer's reasoning is self-evidently wrong..
33
Singer is neither insane or stupid. He is evil incarnate. Fits right in with the American left.
posted on 03.14.2005 5:43 PM34
Singer is neither insane or stupid. He is evil incarnate. Fits right in with the American left.
I wouldn't by any means call Singer "evil incarnate". I think he's a pretty smart logician and, as such, tries to be consistent in his views. But if his core views stem from erroneous presuppositions, so will all of the rest of his views be consistently wrong.
posted on 03.14.2005 5:48 PM35
Alex
"For crying out loud man, his name is PHIL! P-H-I-L. Say it with me now: "PHIIIILLLLLL". Very good."
Oy, my bad.
Sorry Phil. Next thing you know I'll be calling Mr. Ed 'mumon'.
posted on 03.14.2005 5:53 PM36
I can't be the first person to notice that Singer's definition of a "person", a being with the highest value, describes himself.
And what's wrong with the traditional Christian definition of a person as being possesing intellect, emotion, and will?
37
Larry says: Note to Patrick: I'm not touching your bizarre statements justifying so-called "accidental" deaths of civilians in so-called "wars" (to the extent the two recent one-sided attacks on Iraq can be considered "wars"). Those statements demonstrate a strong capacity for something that I'll call "self-delusion," for lack of a more accurate term.
My so-called "statements" come from my so-called "belief" that this so-called "Saddam Hussein" violated so-called "resolutions" and so-called "terms of cease-fire", thereby bringing this so-called "attack" on "himself".
He also killed millions of his so-called "people" and dumped them into so-called "mass graves" if he did shove them "screaming" into "shredders". We did not "target" these "innocents", however "collateral damage" sometimes "happens". Even so, we "gave" them "democracy" as evidenced by the "elections" they just had.
"Iraq" is "free" because of "us".
Am I speakin' your language, Larry?
Babies who are aborted are specifically targetted for death by their "mothers". The Iraqi civilians weren't specifically targetted. That's why it was an accident! In fact, it is the Iraqi terrorists killing most of the civilians over there. I guess you could say that the terrorists are aborting the Iraqis in their 130th trimester!
posted on 03.14.2005 6:25 PM38
Hey it's me...did you get my email about wanting to buy advertising on your page because you backed out on promoting Mind & Media like you said you would?
I'm serious about this? I'm actually annoyed you lied to me about promoting Mind & Media, but I guess being the bigwig Christian hotshot you are, you can lie and get away with it.
So? What's the deal? Do you say things you dont' mean often?
Do you even care that you've hurt my feelings in this issue?
Do you care that it's a bad witness as a Christian to say you will do something and then not follow through on it?
Let me know.
39
I wish you good fortune in your present position, Mr. Carter, but I do hope that in working in an environment where bioethics are discussed, that the level of discussion rises significantly beyond calling the ethical arguments of folks like Singer "stupidity."
But that's just my opinion...
posted on 03.14.2005 7:03 PM40
And I should add (sorry folks) that Mr. Carter's objections to Singer's arguments can be fairly trivially addressed by someone arguing for Singer.
I won't because it's really not worth my time, and because for me the real issue comes down to a "fuzzy" definition of personhood (or, even better anatman) versus a "crisp" one that brings its own absurd baggage (zygotes=people) along with it.
posted on 03.14.2005 7:07 PM41
Phil you cracked me up with this:
--------------------
Even so, we "gave" them "democracy" as evidenced by the "elections" they just had.
--------------------
I couldn't have made better use of quotes than that!
You also wrote
"In fact, it is the Iraqi terrorists killing most of the civilians over there."
So you say. If you believe that more Iraqi civilians have been killed by Iraqi insurgents than were killed by allied bombs since we rolled into Baghdad, you're insane.
If you don't believe that, then it looks to me like you are intentionally twisting facts to justify the deaths of thousands of innocent women and children at the hands of US forces, at least in your own mind.
The first explanation is merely sad. The second explanation creeps me out.
posted on 03.14.2005 7:20 PM42
He says it right there, Boon!
Mr. Ed, Singer also reiterates the theme later on with:
But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it.
Again, the child only has worth if others want it. If no one wanted him/her, then its okay to kill the child.
How Boonton can defend this is beyond me.
posted on 03.14.2005 7:50 PM43
Joe,
I'm not much of a Singer fan (although I do think his positions on infantcide with disabled infants and a person's right to die are pretty appealing), so I'm not here to defend every facet of his work. But I do think, Joe, that you are a philosophical hack. For example:
Take, for example, his criterion for “personhood.” According to Singer’s definition, a "person" refers to a being that is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. The problem with this definition is that a human being ceases to be a “person” when they are unconscious, temporarily comatose, or even just asleep. This leads to the absurd conclusion that a human stops being a “person” when they go to bed at night and yet wake in the morning with their status as a person fully renewed.
This is a really simplistic criticism, and I would suspect Singer has an answer for it. I say this just because it's not hard to distinguish the unconscious ethicists from say, an unconscious baby. If we take even the way you phrased Singer's concept of a person, it he states that person has the "capability" of understanding in exists in time. Presumably, Singer would say that the unconscious ethicist has that "capability" even though she is presently unconscious, and would be able to grasp the concept of her existence over time but for the fact that she is presently unconscious. Simply put, the mental faculties are all there, but maybe their just not presently being used for that concept. The unconsious infant, on the other hand, totally lacks the faculties necessary to grasp the concept of whether conscious or not.
I suppose you could argue that the infant may someday in the future be capable of entertaining the concept, but that would lead head-long into an infinite regress.
You attempt to prempt this argument with this statement:
In response, the abortion advocate, not wanting to abandon his personhood criteria, may argue that the analogy between sleeping/unconscious/comatose persons and fetuses breaks down because the former at one time in their existence functioned as persons and will probably do so in the future, while the latter did not. But this point seems to ignore the significant flaw in defining personhood strictly in terms of function. For to claim that a human being can be functional, become non-functional, and then return to a state of function is to assume that there is some underlying personal unity to this individual. Thus, it is intelligible for us to say that the person who has returned to functional capacity is the same person who was functional prior to being in a non-functional state and yet continued to exist while not functioning. If not, then we would have to make the absurd claim that a new "person" has popped into existence and that the original "person" ceased to exist upon the cessation of his personhood functions. If, however, we were to identify both the first person and the second person with the human organism from which these personal functions have arisen, then the human person is the human organism as long as the human organism exists.
Note that this argument only addresses a theory of personhood that places personhood in the actual functioning alone. ("But this point seems to ignore the significant flaw in defining personhood strictly in terms of function"). This, then, doesn't address Singer because he clearly does not place personhood "stricty in terms of function" but minimally looks to the more expansive notion of "capability" of a particular level of functioning. In short, this misses the point entirely.
posted on 03.14.2005 8:14 PM45
Chris Lutz wants to know how Boonton can defend:
"If no one wanted him/her, then its okay to kill the child."
I suspect that many others reading these comments would argue that even if some people "want" a child, if others want the child dead, then the child should be killed. Indeed, some evangelicals have argued that the killing of some children is mandated by God, regardless of how badly their parents -- or even strangers -- want them to live.
I've seen many posts here ridiculing Singer for his thought-provoking arguments, but none ridiculing evangelicals for their equally bizarre notion of a Christian "mandated death penalty" for children found "guilty" of murder by a jury of a dozen strangers. Such is the paradox of the "culture of the life."
As for Springer's statements that it is wrong to kill a child because others want it, evangelicals and other Christians use that argument all the time to defend their anti-reproductive rights stance. Surely Chris and others here do not mean to say that such Christians believe that it is okay to abort a child if no one wants it. On the other hand, I am not aware of any Christian organization which has agreed to pay all medical expenses and provide adoptive care for every baby conceived by anyone in the United States (or anywhere else -- surely God doesn't care) who would otherwise be aborted and who was fetally diagnosed with terminal and severe genetic defects. Is there such an organization? If so, why not? Please don't answer in the negative and provide utilitarian arguments.
posted on 03.14.2005 8:32 PM46
Larry Lord:As for Springer's statements that it is wrong to kill a child because others want it, evangelicals and other Christians use that argument all the time to defend their anti-reproductive rights stance.
I will admit that that argument is used. However, the heart of pro-life movement's stance is that human life has intrinsic value. Singer doesn't believe that a person is intrinsically valuable until a person reaches some fuzzy mental state. A mental state which doesn't exist in people all of the time and can come and go.
Indeed, some evangelicals have argued that the killing of some children is mandated by God, regardless of how badly their parents -- or even strangers -- want them to live.
This isn't about the death penalty for juveniles who understand the ramifications of their actions. Of course if you're willing to admit that the juveniles who aren't responsible enough to be tried for taking a life, also shouldn't be engaging in an activity that will create a life they can't be responsible for, then we might be able to come to an agreement. ;-)
Please don't answer in the negative and provide utilitarian arguments.
Singer isn't just talking about the severly handicapped or terminally ill. He's going beyond that. A healthy child only has value if a "human being" wants him/her. Otherwise, its okay to kill the child.
BCB:
I suppose you could argue that the infant may someday in the future be capable of entertaining the concept, but that would lead head-long into an infinite regress.
No it's not an infinite regress. Human life starts at some definite point. I believe that point is conception. From that point forward, there is the possibility of the person attaining "capability." In turn the sleeping ethicist will regain his capability of functioning.
47
BCB responed to Joe.
Joe wrote:
"Take, for example, his criterion for “personhood.” According to Singer’s definition, a "person" refers to a being that is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. The problem with this definition is that a human being ceases to be a “person” when they are unconscious, temporarily comatose, or even just asleep. This leads to the absurd conclusion that a human stops being a “person” when they go to bed at night and yet wake in the morning with their status as a person fully renewed."
And BCB responded:
"This is a really simplistic criticism, and I would suspect Singer has an answer for it. I say this just because it's not hard to distinguish the unconscious ethicists from say, an unconscious baby. If we take even the way you phrased Singer's concept of a person, it he states that person has the "capability" of understanding in exists in time. Presumably, Singer would say that the unconscious ethicist has that "capability" even though she is presently unconscious, and would be able to grasp the concept of her existence over time but for the fact that she is presently unconscious. Simply put, the mental faculties are all there, but maybe their just not presently being used for that concept. The unconsious infant, on the other hand, totally lacks the faculties necessary to grasp the concept of whether conscious or not.
I suppose you could argue that the infant may someday in the future be capable of entertaining the concept, but that would lead head-long into an infinite regress."
First off, Singer can speak for himself. He will stand or fall by his own words. Your suspicion that "Singer has an answer for it" is just that, a suspicion. From what I have read of Singer he avoids explaining his inconsistencies. He makes the utilitarian claim his framework and then hangs his words on it; if you disagree with him he wants you to prove utilitarianism is wrong, not his belief that your poor old grandma should be killed for the common good. He tries to steer the questioner back to abstracts from the real. Singer has many interviews available online. I suggest you read them. He will defend to the end his logical premises and get evasive when he's asked to justify specific instances of his premise made manifest.
Second, Joe's analysis of Singer's definition of 'personhood' is far from philosophical quackery. When you say "Presumably, Singer would say that the unconscious ethicist has that "capability" even though she is presently unconscious, and would be able to grasp the concept of her existence over time but for the fact that she is presently unconscious." could as well be applied to a stone, or a fertilized human egg, as well as an unconscious ethicist. Look at your atatement; is the ethicist male or female while unconscious? Does it depend on our judgement? Is 'personhood' a real feature of the universe or just a judgement made by fallible human beings?
48
As usual, Larry leaves a trail of deceit wherever he posts. But here he has outdone himself as his threads of dishonesty weave into nearly every sentence:
I suspect that many others reading these comments would argue that even if some people "want" a child, if others want the child dead, then the child should be killed. Indeed, some evangelicals have argued that the killing of some children is mandated by God, regardless of how badly their parents -- or even strangers -- want them to live.
But Larry doesn't distinguish between "children". He must see all children--from 1 day to 18 years--to be of similar mental and emotional capacity. Or, he's just being dishonest because making a distinction between an innocent neonate and a 17 year old guilty of premeditated murder would completely discredit his argument. Larry knows the truth is in the details.
I've seen many posts here ridiculing Singer for his thought-provoking arguments, but none ridiculing evangelicals for their equally bizarre notion of a Christian "mandated death penalty" for children found "guilty" of murder by a jury of a dozen strangers. Such is the paradox of the "culture of the life."
Two points of dishonesty here: first, there is no "mandated death penalty" for children found guilty of murder. Larry knows this but he's not about to say so. Second, Larry also knows there's been no shortage of posts ridiculing some evangelical support for a juvenile death penalty. How does he know this? Because he himself has been here ridiculing evangelicals for such stances.
As for Springer's statements that it is wrong to kill a child because others want it, evangelicals and other Christians use that argument all the time to defend their anti-reproductive rights stance.
The point of dishonesty here is the misrepresentation of the Christian position. Pro-life Christians don't say that its wrong to kill a child because others may want it. We say its wrong to kill a child because the child is an innocent human being made in the likeness of God. That others may want the child is primary to the question of what to do with the child but secondary to the question of whether its right to take the child's life. Again, the truth is in the details.
On the other hand, I am not aware of any Christian organization which has agreed to pay all medical expenses and provide adoptive care for every baby conceived by anyone in the United States (or anywhere else -- surely God doesn't care) who would otherwise be aborted and who was fetally diagnosed with terminal and severe genetic defects.
Here Larry may be ignorant of the services provided by Christian organization such as Catholic Charities or Bethany Christian Services but that doesn't stop him from dishonestly adding the phrase "for every baby conceived by anyone in the United States (or anywhere else...". You see, these organizations may want to do this for "every baby" but they simply can't because they don't have the funds. That can change, however, if we give more to this type of charity.
But, hey, I'm just a "liar for Jesus", as Larry would say, so what do I know?
posted on 03.14.2005 10:05 PM49
The subpagan mind such as Singer's is easy to read.
They are against the "Jewish influence" and the "ethical code worship of the Jews."
Because of the scripts of Scripture and the ancient symbolism involved in some aspects of things they seem to work towards inversions and perversions of the true Version of things.
An example, the ancient symbol of animal sacrifice that according to the scripts of Scripture began when God killed an animal to clothe/cover over the shame of Adam and Eve is inverted into animal rights and nudism instead.
That is the sort of thing that people who reject the scripts of Scripture will believe, ultimately rejecting the Lamb of God in who that sort of symbol behind the symbolic laws of the Jews is fulfilled.
As evil people write the same pattern of principles over and over it is as if they are the signs of malevolent design.
Example,
"Vivisection Forbidden in Prussia!
The New Germany leads all civilized nations in the area of animal protection!
. . . .A Reich Animal Protection Law which includes a ban on vivisection is imminent and just now comes the news, elating all friends of animals, that the greatest German state, Prussia, has outlawed vivisection with no exceptions!
The National Socialist German Workers' Party { NSDAP } press release states:
"The Prussian minister-president Goering has released a statement stating that starting 16 August 1933 vivisection of animals of all kinds is forbidden in Prussia. He has requested that the concerned ministries draft a law after which vivisection will be punished with a high penalty *). Until the law goes into effect, persons who, despite this prohibition, order, participate or perform vivisections on animals of any kind will be deported to concentration camps."
. . . .What Reichschancellor Adolph Hitler and Minister-president Goering have done and will do for the protection of animals should set the course for the leaders of all civilized nations!"
(Die Weisse Fahne {The White Flag} 14 (1933) :710-711)
Etc.
A parable of Cain and the Blood and the Soil mixed in with some comments and history on the merger of human and animal in Nazism. That which will be repeated by the subpagans of the religious Left, from the Weimar to the American Republic.
"But, hey, I'm just a "liar for Jesus", as Larry would say, so what do I know?"
Uh huh, I think Larry's mind may have naturalistic explanations, such as emotional conditioning and the like. It seems easy to read.
posted on 03.14.2005 11:25 PM50
I can see how Boon would make the mistake but Capitalist and Free Market systems treasure one thing that no true Utilitarian could accept: private property. That's because an accumulation of private property by one individual is not seen as bringing the maximum happiness to the most people.
Really? Why? Many 'rigerous' descriptions of the market system demonstrate that equilibrium states are pareto optimium. In other words, one person cannot be made better off without making someone else worse off. In other words markets produce solutions that suit the requirements of a utilitarian.
In fact, one method of analyzing demand in micro-economics uses a hypothetical unit of measure called 'utils' to represent the utility of some good to an individual.
Okay, aren't you basically making the same mistake, but at the opposite end of the argument, as you claim Joe is? I mean, you're telling us that Singer 'almost certainly addresses' the issues Joe raised. But you are saying it without reading Singer's materials. It's fine to say that Joe is making a mistake by judging Singer's work from a single interview. But isn't it also a mistake to defend his work (not his theories, but his work) based on the same interview?
It would if I was really defending his work. I'm simply pointing out that in the FAQ interview he acknowledges that his definition is unusual and he references other works where he goes into more detail. If anyone has actually read Singer beyond this FAQ then I invite them to provide us with a summary of what he has to say so we can discuss it.
Now, how do you understand this other than that an infant's value is based soley upon it's worth to it's parents?
He states, Mr. Ed, that to kill an infant is to (usually) do a great wrong to its parents who love and cherish it. We all agree it is a wrong to the parents to kill their infant, that much is clear. He does not state, however, that the infant's value is exclusively based on the emotional feelings its parents have. If he did then it would be logical to kill orphans or children not wanted by their parents. Or it would be logical to permit parents to kill their own infants. Perhaps Singer does go this far in his other work but I don't see it in the FAQ's that was references and I don't have time to read him 'cause I gotta correct all the errors you guys keep making! :)
It would be interesting to know how far Singer goes with this idea. If an infant should be protected because his parents love him then what if two other people happen to love that infant more? Should their extra love override the parental rights of the biological parents (leave aside the thorny question of how we measure who loves who more)? If Singer goes all the way and views infants as only property of their parents then why would parents not be allowed to kill their infants? I'm free to burn my stamp collection even though others may cherish it.
I wouldn't by any means call Singer "evil incarnate". I think he's a pretty smart logician and, as such, tries to be consistent in his views. But if his core views stem from erroneous presuppositions, so will all of the rest of his views be consistently wrong.
Dammit MR. ED!! You basically are saying what I said. Sigh... well that's two that think Joe is off base when he calls Singer stupid.
Phil:
The Iraqi civilians weren't specifically targetted. That's why it was an accident! In fact, it is the Iraqi terrorists killing most of the civilians over there. I guess you could say that the terrorists are aborting the Iraqis in their 130th trimester!
Which is my point. If we didn't value life then we would be targetting civilians. We would practice 'collective punishment', as empires have done since the beginning of time rather than put our own people at risk hunting down individual terrorists.
Second, Joe's analysis of Singer's definition of 'personhood' is far from philosophical quackery. When you say "Presumably, Singer would say that the unconscious ethicist has that "capability" even though she is presently unconscious, and would be able to grasp the concept of her existence over time but for the fact that she is presently unconscious." could as well be applied to a stone, or a fertilized human egg, as well as an unconscious ethicist. Look at your atatement; is the ethicist male or female while unconscious? Does it depend on our judgement? Is 'personhood' a real feature of the universe or just a judgement made by fallible human beings?
1. Who says you can't grasp the concept of your existence when youre asleep? I've had plenty of dreams where I've grasped my existence...even made plans for my upcoming day!
2. A stone does not have this capacity nor does a fertilized egg. As far as we can tell mental processes including our understanding of concepts like our own existence take place inside our brains. A rock lacks such an organ or anything that could serve as a substitute...ditto for a fertilized egg.
51
This reminds me of something my former professor at Duke Stanley Fish once asked (I believe in the context of a discussion about abortion and embryonic research): If it were discovered that babies were a delicacy capable of bringing human beings much happiness and unique health benefits, and if there were a large enough market of unwanted babied, would it be ok to eat them?
The class was horrified by the question, of course, but he makes a good point about the limits of the sort of utilitarian thinking championed by Peter Singer.
posted on 03.15.2005 10:48 AM52
Mr Ed:
Everything comes with baggage; the question is whether or not you can carry it on board.
IME, anatman is light enough to accomodate vehicles with as few or as many passangers as need be.
posted on 03.15.2005 11:40 AM53
mumon:
Maybe, in a world with no Maos or Pol Pots. Maybe, in a world where everyone believes the same thing. The problem is that people do evil; and an idea like anatman is easily exploited.
posted on 03.15.2005 12:50 PM54
Mr. Ed
"You see, these organizations may want to do this for "every baby" but they simply can't because they don't have the funds."
Ah, so now we have a way of measuring the what the pro-lifers mean when they talk about the "intrinsic value" of human life, the "heart of the their arguments" against abortion and euthanasia.
So how do the pro-war pro-death penalty pro-lifers do these calculations? Is their a chart somewhere which lays out the values? Why don't you make one for us, Mr. Ed, since you seem to have this all figured out. Add up the numbers and tell me why it's okay to kill a hundred thousand innocent people in Iraq but not abort a fetus without a brain. Let's see you make a positive statement for once.
posted on 03.15.2005 1:14 PM55
Mr. Ed
"Pro-life Christians don't say that its wrong to kill a child because others may want it."
I am not going to waste my time doing a Google search to prove your statement is false. You already showed how full of garbage you are with your Nascar/Church denials on another thread. Educating you really isn't worth my time, Ed. Try a little harder, please.
posted on 03.15.2005 1:16 PM56
"Larry also knows there's been no shortage of posts ridiculing some evangelical support for a juvenile death penalty. How does he know this? Because he himself has been here ridiculing evangelicals for such stances."
Oh please. Next thing you know you'll be on my case for spelling errors. I meant posts (not comments) by Joe Carter ridiculing the concept of a Biblically mandated death penalty for murderers, period. Does the Bible make a distinction between a 17 year old murderer and an 18 year old? I don't think so, but perhaps Mr. Ed knows otherwise.
Remember, folks, Ed doesn't like to criticize the "family." Evangelicals can say all the garbage they want and pretend that the Bible says just about anything. You won't see Ed criticizing them here unless you somehow imply that Ed might share some of those wacko beliefs by virtue of Ed's Johnsonite "worldview". Then Ed will go ballistic! It's actually kind of sad to watch.
posted on 03.15.2005 1:21 PM57
Indeed, how is 'intrinsic value' really measured and compared? For example, if all human life is equal then utilitarian calculations are quite simple. 800 people on the Titantic and 500 lifeboat slots. As long as the 500 slots are filled (in other words boats are not launched partially empty) you've optimized your situation ethically. However other ethical systems would demand more refined rules. For example, 'women and children first'...and 'the captain and officers are the last to leave the ship'
posted on 03.15.2005 2:04 PM58
Really? Why? Many 'rigerous' descriptions of the market system demonstrate that equilibrium states are pareto optimium. In other words, one person cannot be made better off without making someone else worse off. In other words markets produce solutions that suit the requirements of a utilitarian.
Remember, you're telling this to a person leaning heavily towards classical liberalism. You're not going to find an argument from me if you want to espouse the merits of the free market for society as a whole. But Utilitarians aren't likely to see it that way. Bentham, though trying to pretend to be a capitalist, argued against pure capitalism in the form of laissez faire econimics. Though it may seem contradictory, Utilitarians tended to lean towards heavy state interventionism and socialism.
It would if I was really defending his work.
You appeared to be doing so by stating that you're sure Singer addresses the apparent inconsistencies in his book without having read the book. But I agree, it appears we're all more or less ignorant of the subtleties of his theories. I guess the question is, knowing the practicle outcome of his theories, is it really worth learning how he came to those conclusions? I think it is if only to avoid making the same mistakes. That is to say, more than just a morbid curiosity, I'd like to know how that train wreck of a philosophy occured so I can avoid being caught in one.
He states, Mr. Ed, that to kill an infant is to (usually) do a great wrong to its parents who love and cherish it. We all agree it is a wrong to the parents to kill their infant, that much is clear. He does not state, however, that the infant's value is exclusively based on the emotional feelings its parents have.
I kind of thought you were going to say that. Here, let me go through it again adding some emphasis:
So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.
So, its clear that Singer only uses the term "usually" because he recognizes that there are some parents who don't love and cherish their children. Furthermore, as Chris Lutz mentioned, Singer goes on in the subsequent paragraphs to reiterate the point:
But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it.
Dammit MR. ED!! You basically are saying what I said.
Well why didn't you say so? ;-)
posted on 03.15.2005 2:26 PM59
Ah, so now we have a way of measuring the what the pro-lifers mean when they talk about the "intrinsic value" of human life, the "heart of the their arguments" against abortion and euthanasia.
More dishonesty. My point had nothing to do with atributing a value to life. It only had to do with the practicality of the matter.
So how do the pro-war pro-death penalty pro-lifers do these calculations? Is their a chart somewhere which lays out the values? Why don't you make one for us, Mr. Ed, since you seem to have this all figured out. Add up the numbers and tell me why it's okay to kill a hundred thousand innocent people in Iraq but not abort a fetus without a brain. Let's see you make a positive statement for once.
Still more dishonesty. The numbers provided by the Lancet article have been easily disputed. Further, Larry is mixing categories here. Not surprising, but difficult to tell whether he is neing dishonest or ignorant. I guess I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
I meant posts (not comments) by Joe Carter ridiculing the concept of a Biblically mandated death penalty for murderers, period.
Then start your own blog.
Does the Bible make a distinction between a 17 year old murderer and an 18 year old?
Again, you're talking about something that doesn't exist for Evangelicals.
You won't see Ed criticizing them here unless you somehow imply that Ed might share some of those wacko beliefs by virtue of Ed's Johnsonite "worldview". Then Ed will go ballistic! It's actually kind of sad to watch.
The dishonesty doth abound. When have I ever gone "ballistic" on this board? Of course this falls in line with Lar's constant hyperbolizing.
posted on 03.15.2005 2:41 PM60
Indeed, how is 'intrinsic value' really measured and compared? For example, if all human life is equal then utilitarian calculations are quite simple. 800 people on the Titantic and 500 lifeboat slots. As long as the 500 slots are filled (in other words boats are not launched partially empty) you've optimized your situation ethically. However other ethical systems would demand more refined rules. For example, 'women and children first'...and 'the captain and officers are the last to leave the ship'
Youre confusing categories, Boon. The idea of intrinsic human value can co-exist quite nicely with the idea of self-sacrifice. The idea of "women and children first" was born out of the notion that men should be gallant in everyday situations and heroic in adverse situations. It also has a somewhat utilitarian bent, if you like, in that women can continue to procreate to keep the race going and children have a longer time to procreate than a fully grown man.
posted on 03.15.2005 2:56 PM61
Mumon
A fertilized zygote IS the begining of human life. No unfertilized zygote every grew into a 21 year old voter. Fertilized zygotes do it all the time unless people like you kill them first. Biology is very straight forward. You try to mask your evil intent with symantics like "zygote, fetus and choice". The Nazis called their evil "The Final Solution". That sounded better than reality also. Symantics does not make it right. Symantics do not obsolve a person of the evil that person does.
Larry Lord
The problem with you leftists is that you believe your own propaganda. Show me the evidence you have that thousands of civilians were killed by US bombing. From the leftist MSM reports I saw there was one bunker that the Iraqis filled with "human shields". Outside of that their were only a few hundred more. As far as colateral damage is concered this war was relatively bloodless as far as civilians were concerned. Of course that compares the Iraqi death tolls to past wars. It does not compair it to the liberal standard of perfection. Only liberals can fight wars with no casualties.
We see nightly reports of terrorists murdering unarmed civilian ON PURPOSE. We have killed no civilians ON PURPOSE.
I know that does not agree with your leftist view of history. But it does represent the accurate historical record, unlike the left-wing propaganda you are peddling.
Does lying about the actions of our troops make the person who spreads that lie a traitor?
posted on 03.15.2005 3:00 PM62
Mr Ed :
Anything is exploited: in fact, atman has been exploited more than anatman in history and day to day experience: greed and hatred arise, at least in part, from the inculcation that there is something to be greedy for and somone or something apart from myself to hate.
Mao and Pol Pot were, of course, materialists, which is hardly the definition of a Buddhist.
posted on 03.15.2005 3:14 PM63
Mao and Pol Pot were, of course, materialists, which is hardly the definition of a Buddhist.
Certainly, but it didn't stop them for exploiting Buddhist views and garnering support from millions of Buddhists. Similarly, Hitler was clearly not a Christian practitioner but that didn't stop him from exploiting historic Christian tendancies towards the Jews.
Getting back to the subject, I think the "crisp" definition you refer to necessarily protects life more consistently that your "fuzzy" one.
posted on 03.15.2005 3:58 PM64
Some rube wrote
"Show me the evidence you have that thousands of civilians were killed by US bombing."
Huh? Are you joking? Do a Google search and educate yourself. How many civilians do you think were killed? 900?
Jeebus. You make Mr. Ed sound reasonable.
Speaking of which, nice job Mr. Ed at dodging the issue once again. Let's give Ed another chance, like we do with all the dissembling evading Christian kiddies around here:
"Add up the numbers and tell me why it's okay to kill a hundred thousand innocent people in Iraq but not abort a fetus without a brain. Let's see you make a positive statement for once."
Let's have the answer Ed. It doesn't matter whether 100,000, 150,000, 50,000 or 10,000 innocent civilians were killed in Iraq for you to answer the question. Of course, you know that but you pretended not to -- all on behalf of your holy book and its superheroes. Nice one, Ed. It's not too late to redeem yourself.
posted on 03.15.2005 4:27 PM65
Your question couldn't and stillcan't be answered as asked. In other words, Larry, are you still beating your wife? I tried to tell you this but you were too ignorant/dishonest (your choice) to admit it.
Now, if you want to ask why it is justifiable, in my opinion, to kill innocent civilians in the conduct of war then I would have to say that the benefits would have to outweigh the costs. Of course the cost of innocent life is immeasurable. But we're talking about the cost of several thousand innocent lives versus the cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and millions more living under cruel despotism. In that case, there is a choice that needs to be made. I believe that history will show we made the right choice by ousting Saddam. I might be wrong and, like the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we might see evidence in hind sight that the whole thing may have been unnecessary. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't make the decision. The UN waited to make a decision in Rwanda and we can see what happened.
posted on 03.15.2005 4:44 PM66
Remember, you're telling this to a person leaning heavily towards classical liberalism. You're not going to find an argument from me if you want to espouse the merits of the free market for society as a whole. But Utilitarians aren't likely to see it that way. Bentham, though trying to pretend to be a capitalist, argued against pure capitalism in the form of laissez faire econimics. Though it may seem contradictory, Utilitarians tended to lean towards heavy state interventionism and socialism.
Like it or not Marxism is nothing more than a more radical version of capitalism with some erroneous assumptions and some non-rigerous 'historical analysis'. Marx accepted the 'classical liberal' economists like Smith and Ricardo (who themselves were utilitarians), in fact he did praise capitalism for bringing humanity out of the dark ages.
Much of economic theory after Smith revolved around when and how the state should intervene in the economy. It began with a revolt against mercantalism which is why even today economists from far different ends of the political spectrum (like Paul Krugman and Larry Kudlow) will agree that protectionism is bad policy. Later on it branched between the classical school and marxism. Eventually it branched yet again after the Depression as the classical school imploded and Keynesianism, monatarism, the Austrian School, neo-classics and so on took the stage.
You appeared to be doing so by stating that you're sure Singer addresses the apparent inconsistencies in his book without having read the book. But I agree, it appears we're all more or less ignorant of the subtleties of his theories. I guess the question is, knowing the practicle outcome of his theories, is it really worth learning how he came to those conclusions? I think it is if only to avoid making the same mistakes. That is to say, more than just a morbid curiosity, I'd like to know how that train wreck of a philosophy occured so I can avoid being caught in one.
1. I'm pointing out it is unfair to bash Singer for not explaining his definition in the FAQ when he states flat out "you should read X to know more about how I derived this definition". If Joe actually read X in addition to the FAQ and it didn't do anything to give explain how he derived his definition then its a perfectly valid criticism.
2. The answer to your question is yes. If you are going to attack someone's work then you should know their work and why it is wrong. First of all uncovering why it is wrong is educational in itself. On this list we saw a little bit of that enlightenment as Terry explored the issues arising with a functional definition of personhood. Second of all if you are going to attack a man's theory you owe it to him to know it and explain why it is wrong. Do you remember when you first took alegbra or calculus? Remember how you didn't pass the test by just writing down the right answer but by showing your work?
So, its clear that Singer only uses the term "usually" because he recognizes that there are some parents who don't love and cherish their children. Furthermore, as Chris Lutz mentioned, Singer goes on in the subsequent paragraphs to reiterate the point:
I'm not sure how far we need to go with this point. I suspect Singer would at some point argue that suffering should not be visited on another living thing unless it served some greater purpose. Hence even if an animal did not have that 'recognition of the future' that qualifies it for personhood in Singer's scheme of things it doesn't become a lump that you can tear apart just because you happen to be bored.
This, I suspect, would probably lead us into some of Singer's conclusions about animal rights which he is well known for. However we are all suffering from ignorance of our primary source here so perhaps we should let it go...
posted on 03.15.2005 4:51 PM67
Mr. Ed, you can't be serious
"Now, if you want to ask why it is justifiable, in my opinion, to kill innocent civilians in the conduct of war then I would have to say that the benefits would have to outweigh the costs. Of course the cost of innocent life is immeasurable."
And then Ed goes on to justify killing thousands of innocent men, women, children and unborn children in Iraq by the United States military. Thanks, Ed. My point proven (several points actually).
posted on 03.15.2005 5:28 PM68
I am serious. I'd ask if you were serious but you didn't say anything.
posted on 03.15.2005 6:44 PM