UPDATE: There is this one bit I can't resist commenting on-
A world without people is a blissful place to the intellectual. Why, just think: “No one’s rights will be violated”! One of the many, many commenters anxious to agree with Singer’s religion says, “I love the idea of a planet devoid of people, healing itself from our damage, taken over by animals and plants.”
Ah, the contradiction again, this time in a different form. The intellectual somehow believes he will be able to smile down on creation after mankind has been exterminated.
Firstly, note all the 'intellectual' dissing once again. So many of these folks really seem intimidated by people who 'think about stuff' for a living. Why do those images from 'Fahrenheit 451' keep flaring up in my mind? LOL!
But the really interesting thing is how the author can't wrap his mind around the idea of someone caring about something enough to do something about it, without the ability to later personally experience the fruits of his efforts. To see an act of self-sacrifice as definitionally contradictory is just so, so sad, isn't it? Why should mankind care about something that he can't ultimately benefit from? Somebody should probably warn this guy that if he keeps seeing things like this, eventually he's gonna find Jesus' boot buried in his groin (sorry, but I just can't help myself :))
10 comments:
It's so depressing. They make the same errors over and over, and they don't care.
Kinda like human history.
Yeah, that.
I'm surprised they're not calling him a goat fucker after reading his Wikipedia entry.
Curator:
LOL! From Wiki-
"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.[27] 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.[28]"
A couple of things here. If a male dog has sex with its female owner, how in the world can that be construed as non-consensual on the part of the dog? Or does that fall under the aegis of 'informed' consent? Still, defining such a thing as abusive shows the sometimes tremendous gap between 'rights' based thinking as opposed to consequentialist thinking.
Of course, the real irony here is that sex with animals is termed abusive, while killing and eating them- without their informed consent, mind you- is the American Way! LOLOLOL!
And btw, it REALLY bothers me that Singer is able to recognize the problems of existence through a consequentialist's eye, and then blithely brush them off with a wave of his Pollyannish hand. REALLY pisses me off!
And I thought Peter Singer were one of the good guys
"Of course, the real irony here is that sex with animals is termed abusive, while killing and eating them- without their informed consent, mind you- is the American Way!"
Talk about double standards.
French dude:
Que sera, sera.
Shadow:
Not that I don't have plenty of my own. When the rubber meets the road, there's bound to be some friction.
Speaking of Fahrenheit 451, have you guys seen this article before? It's an oldie but goodie. It was mentioned on Benatar's UCT page, but there was no link, so I'd never read it until a couple days ago.
The author (a U of Helsinki Philosophy prof - I can't imagine how Matti Hayry must feel when in company with that specimen) basically says that some ideas are so unthinkable (and so outside of the human moral framework) that they should not be tolerated, no matter how logical the arguments may be, and he uses Benatar as an example. It's not like he's advocating burning his book, per se. He doesn't even suggest it shouldn't have been allowed to go to print. All he asks is merely that no one read it or think about it. That is all. Also, "there are indeed culturally loaded ethical limits to what we may truly think and still remain human beings".
Forgot to post the link
Post a Comment