PETER SINGER'S "MORALITY"
Some time back Richard Dawkins
interviewed a man by the name of, Peter Singer. He started the interview
with the following statement: “There are… many people who would say, But
where does your morality come from? As I said, ‘you’re the most moral person
I’ve ever met.’”[i]
Who is this paragon of morality called Peter Singer? What
are his moral credentials? What does this statement reveal about Richard
Dawkins, the undisputed high priest of modern atheism?
Peter Singer is one of the most distorted atheists the
world has seen in a very long time.
Please read his own words as he presents his views on
babies and what to do with the ones who have disabilities in the following
article by Donald Demarco.
Singer, by trying to be more
broadminded than is reasonable, has created a philosophy that actually
dehumanizes people, reducing them to points of consciousness that are
indistinguishable from those of many non-human animals.
Therefore, what is of
primary importance for the Princeton bioethicists is not the existence of
the being in question, but its quality of life.
But this process of dehumanization leads directly to discrimination against
those whose quality of life is not sufficiently developed. Singer has little
choice but to divide humanity into those who have a preferred state of life
from those who do not. In this way, his broad egalitarianism decays into a
we reject belief in God we must give up the idea that life on this planet
has some preordained meaning. Life as a whole has no meaning. Life began, as
the best available theories tell us, in a chance combination of gasses; it
then evolved through random mutation and natural selection. All this just
happened; it did not happen to any overall purpose. Now that it has resulted
in the existence of beings who prefer some states of affairs to others,
however, it may be possible for particular lives to be meaningful. In this
sense some atheists can find meaning in life.
Life can be meaningful for
an atheist when he is able to spend his life in a "preferred state." The
atheistic perspective here does not center on people, however, it centers on
happiness. This curious preference for happiness over people engenders a
rather chilling logic. It is not human life or the existing human being that
is good, but the "preferred state." Human life is not sacrosanct, but a
certain kind of life can be "meaningful." If one baby is disabled, does it
not make sense to kill it and replace it with one who is not and "therefore"
has a better chance for happiness? "When the death of the disabled
infant," writes Singer, "will lead to the birth of another infant with
better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be
greater if the disabled infant is killed.
According to this avant garde thinker, unborn
babies or neonates, lacking the requisite consciousness to qualify as
persons, have less right to continue to live than an adult gorilla. By the
same token, a suffering or disabled child would have a weaker claim not to
be killed than a mature pig. Singer writes, in
Rethinking Life and Death:
Human babies are not born
self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not
persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection
that the life of a fetus.
And writing specifically
about Down syndrome babies, he advocates trading a disabled or defective
child (one who is apparently doomed to too much suffering) for one who has
better prospects for happiness:
We may not want a child to start on life's
uncertain voyage if the prospects are clouded. When this can be known at a
very early stage in the voyage, we may still have a chance to make a fresh
start. This means detaching ourselves from the infant who has been born,
cutting ourselves free before the ties that have already begun to bind us to
our child have become irresistible. Instead of going forward and putting all
our effort into making the best of the situation, we can still say no, and
start again from the beginning."[ii]
This is Peter Singer,
according to Dawkins, “the most moral person he’s ever met.” Clearly Richard
Dawkins must keep a circle of friends that is distorted beyond belief, if
Peter Singer is the most moral of them all.
Peter Singer is well
known for his blood-curdling views. Few knew, though, that Richard Dawkins
actually supports the man and holds him in such high esteem.
When one is saturated
with evolutionary thinking as both of these men are, it will follow that in
time they will devalue human life and will move toward eugenics as a way to
keep the human pool healthy and strong, even if this means getting rid of
the weak and needy.
This is the
inevitable path that fanatical, evolutionistic leaders have followed and
will continue to inevitably.
Yet atheists are
quick to elevate their “morals” as superior to Judeo-Christian morals.
Humanity has a
choice: follow the path laid by people like Dawkins and Singer or go back to
the way of kindness and mercy toward the needy and weak as elevated by Jesus
Christ and others like Him. What will YOU choose?
We Believe in God
Artists, Musicians, Philosophers, Scientists, Writers and Poets Believed
a great many Nobel-Prize winners).
Unlike what atheists propagate, the greatest minds of
the past believed in God.
Read the fully-referenced proofs in this book.
AVAILABLE IN BOTH PAPERBACK AND E-BOOK
FORMAT ON AMAZON.
Free Booklet from UCG.org
Life's Ultimate Question: Does God Exist?