Click here to read more...
 
 
 
March 27, 2008
Newsletter:     
Search:        
 
Click Here to Order!
 
 
 
 
Return to Home Page Doctrine, Scripture, Morality, Vocation, Community Identity, Sexuality, Family, Healing, Work Art, Ideas, Technology, Science, Business Politics, Bioethics, Ecology, Justice, Peace Spirituality, Prayers, Poems, and Witness Archive of top news from around the web Columns, Reviews and Personal Essays Share your opinions, ideas, and experiences What is Godspy?
GODSPY Discussion Forums
Members must log-in before posting. If you are not a member, click here to join. Take a moment to read our frequently asked questions. And check the today page for announcements from the editors.



Navigation:


FORUMS > ISSUES [ REFRESH ]
Thread Title: What's Love Got to Do with It? The Ethical Contradictions of Peter Singer  [Feature]
Created On February 25, 2005 7:55 PM
  What's Love Got to Do with It? The Ethical Contradictions of Peter Singer - Godspy
  What's Love Got to Do with It? The Ethical Contradictions of Peter Singer - TonyC
  What's Love Got to Do with It? The Ethical Contradictions of Peter Singer - spy1
  What's Love Got to Do with It? The Ethical Contradictions of Peter Singer - petewagner33
  What's Love Got to Do with It? The Ethical Contradictions of Peter Singer - shadow


Godspy

Posts: 13
Joined: Sep 2003

February 25, 2005 7:55 PM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

Utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer says some humans�particularly fetuses, newborn babies, and elderly people suffering from dementia�should be killed if their deaths will reduce overall suffering. Never mind that Singer broke all of his own rules when his mother became ill with Alzheimer�s disease.

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



TonyC

Posts: 29
Joined: Nov 2004

February 26, 2005 9:22 PM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

Reading this article reminds me of Pope John Paul's analysis of Capitalism and Communism in his 1983 Encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (On Concern for the Social Order). He spoke about Capitalism's economic ethic as one which subsumed the rights of the common good to individualism and noted Communism as a force which subsumed the dignity of the human person to the collective. I see little difference between Communism and Singer's philosophy. On paper, it is heartless, but in reality, no ideology can wipe out the fact that made in the Trinity's image and likeness, we find fulfillment in self-giving love. I do know that when the call went out to the world's bishops for submissions on issues to be addressed at the Second Vatican Council, Bishop Karol Wojtyla -who had witnessed the atrocities of the Communist and Nazi regimes- expressed his concern for humanity's failure to contemplate the face of Christ in the human person. For him, humanity was in desperate need of recovering this reverence for human dignity in each and every person. Without it, Western civilization cannot survive. When Pope John Paul returned to Poland after the fall of Communism, he was deeply pained to see his fellow Poles buying into Capitalism's empty promises of happiness based on self-centered consumerism that was suppplanting the deeply religious values of Poland's culture, and chastised them for it out of love, saying "you are my brothers, my sisters, my mother!" Clearly, here was someone who could identify deeply with each and every one, not just as fellow citizens, but as family. I pray that one day, Dr. Singer will wake up to recognize the law of love written by Love on his and on every human heart, and learn to see his brother, sister and mother in each and every person as well. As this article so well states, only a civilization of love, that grows in human hearts can truly counter the emptiness of this kind of Utilitarianism.

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



spy1

Posts: 26
Joined: May 2004

March 08, 2005 6:12 PM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

Thank you, Dr. Colosi, for this excellent article. I almost didn't read it, because Singer's views--and the fact that people reward him with a unversity chair or what have you--make me so very angry. But I'm glad I did read it. Somehow it makes me feel a bit better to know he couldn't off his own mother, and even a bit is something. Too bad he hasn't seemed to learn anything from that experience. Let's pray for him.

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



petewagner33

Posts: 2
Joined: Apr 2005

April 09, 2005 11:32 AM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

Quote

Dr. Peter Singer, a tenured professor of the Center for Human Values at Princeton University, is one of the world's most famous and influential philosophers.


You're confusing being published with being influential. Singer gets published a lot because he produces what the publishers are looking for -- no other explanation. His ideas are neither original, nor that intelligently developed. He basically serves the function of manipulating vulnerable minds and agitating non-vulnerable minds.

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



shadow

Posts: 1
Joined: Apr 2006

April 05, 2006 3:24 PM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

I won't defend Dr. Singer on any of his positions as I consider them outlandish and pure tripe.

However, I will say this: I feel that the title, or the subtitle of this article is misleading. Singer doesn't say that those he considers 'non-persons' should be killed, but rather they can be killed without it being unethical. This position is still utterly bogus, but it's not as if Singer is advocating straight homocide.

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom

FORUMS > ISSUES [ REFRESH ]
Click to buy at Amazon.com!
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Advertise | About Us

FuseTalk 3.1 - Copyright � 1999-2002 e-Zone Media Inc. All rights reserved.