A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
I presume the star witness for the defense will be the distinguished Dr. Peter Albert David Singer, AC, an Australian moral philosopher. He is currently the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.
In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers' Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty" and that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals, and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities. {Who in heck is Otto Soyka and why is he/she/it a moral authority?!?] This position is countered by fellow philosopher Tom Regan, who writes that the same argument could be used to justify having sex with children. Regan writes that Singer's position is a consequence of his adapting a utilitarian, or consequentialist, approach to animal rights, rather than a strictly rights-based one, and argues that the rights-based position distances itself from non-consensual sex. The Humane Society of the United States takes the position that all sexual molestation of animals by humans is abusive, whether it involves physical injury or not.
Commenting on Singer's article "Heavy Petting," in which he argues that zoosexual activity need not be abusive, and that relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed, Ingrid Newkirk, president of the animal rights group PETA, argued that, "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, [then] it may not be wrong." A few years later, Newkirk clarified in a letter to the Canada Free Press that she was strongly opposed to any exploitation of, and all sexual activity with, animals.
I am completely unable to understand how someone with Singer's views could chair two prestigious positions on ethics at two major universities.
Second, in order to make personal progress as a philosopher, one cannot merely parrot previous philosophers. One must break with them and develop all new "philosophy".
Third, in order to be noticed, the all new philosophy must be radical and controversial.
Fourth, consequentialism has no limits; many philosophers limit themselves to at least some cultural standards. But taken to the limit, consequentialism can be as brutal as necessary to gain notice for the philosopher, who removes cultural limits. This has already been done by Nietzsche in the concept of will to power and Anti-rationalism; now it is being done for eugenics and sexual limits which are removed by the uberleft with Singer carrying the standard.
A late thought: Ethics is not the same as morality. It is a subjective assignment of permissions or proscriptions based on the opinions of morally authorized individuals or committees regarding perceived consequences of alternative actions: i.e. it is inherently consequentialist.
4 comments:
I presume the star witness for the defense will be the distinguished Dr. Peter Albert David Singer, AC, an Australian moral philosopher. He is currently the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.
His views (NOT MINE!!!) on the topic:
(Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Bestiality)
Bestiality
In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers' Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty" and that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals, and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities. {Who in heck is Otto Soyka and why is he/she/it a moral authority?!?] This position is countered by fellow philosopher Tom Regan, who writes that the same argument could be used to justify having sex with children. Regan writes that Singer's position is a consequence of his adapting a utilitarian, or consequentialist, approach to animal rights, rather than a strictly rights-based one, and argues that the rights-based position distances itself from non-consensual sex. The Humane Society of the United States takes the position that all sexual molestation of animals by humans is abusive, whether it involves physical injury or not.
Commenting on Singer's article "Heavy Petting," in which he argues that zoosexual activity need not be abusive, and that relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed, Ingrid Newkirk, president of the animal rights group PETA, argued that, "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, [then] it may not be wrong." A few years later, Newkirk clarified in a letter to the Canada Free Press that she was strongly opposed to any exploitation of, and all sexual activity with, animals.
I am completely unable to understand how someone with Singer's views could chair two prestigious positions on ethics at two major universities.
A partial explanation for Singer:
First, most philosophers are Atheist.
Second, in order to make personal progress as a philosopher, one cannot merely parrot previous philosophers. One must break with them and develop all new "philosophy".
Third, in order to be noticed, the all new philosophy must be radical and controversial.
Fourth, consequentialism has no limits; many philosophers limit themselves to at least some cultural standards. But taken to the limit, consequentialism can be as brutal as necessary to gain notice for the philosopher, who removes cultural limits. This has already been done by Nietzsche in the concept of will to power and Anti-rationalism; now it is being done for eugenics and sexual limits which are removed by the uberleft with Singer carrying the standard.
A late thought: Ethics is not the same as morality. It is a subjective assignment of permissions or proscriptions based on the opinions of morally authorized individuals or committees regarding perceived consequences of alternative actions: i.e. it is inherently consequentialist.
Perhaps the Wikipedia article should be modified to read "an Australian immoral philosopher of ethics."
No argument regarding the distinction between ethics and morality that you made. One can be ethical and immoral, just as one can be legal and immoral.
Post a Comment