informationliberation
The news you're not supposed to know...




Austrian Economics: The Most Important Thing You'll Ever Learn
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
(more)
Article posted Jun 09 2010, 4:57 PM Category: Brave New World Source: LifeSiteNews Print

Princeton Philosopher: ‘Why Not Sterilize the Human Race and Party into Extinction?’

By Peter J. Smith

NEW YORK, June 8, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Princeton philosopher Peter Singer one of the world’s foremost contemporary utilitarian philosophers infamous for his advocacy of infanticide, would like individuals to consider this question: would sterilizing the human race to spare future generations the pain of existence be a good idea?

In a blog post for the New York Times entitled “Should this be the last generation?” Singer discusses in glowing terms the thought of South African philosopher David Benatar. Singer calls Benator the “author of a fine book with an arresting title: ‘Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.’”

“To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her,” explains Singer.

Both Singer and Benatar both believe that human beings do not have inherent dignity. Singer, the Princeton Chair of Bioethics, has gained notoriety for asserting that infanticide is justifiable, especially for disabled infants, because they lack self-awareness, which he asserts is a requirement for personhood.

A key difference, however, between Singer and Benatar, an existential nihilist who chairs the Department of Philosophy at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, is that Singer believes life could be worth living in certain conditions. But Benatar flat out rejects existence as good, and the still-living author discusses that view in his controversial book.

Singer explains Benatar’s antinatalist philosophy, which bases its moral framework by weighing the consequences of existence, in this way: “everyone will suffer to some extent, and if our species continues to reproduce, we can be sure that some future children will suffer severely. Hence continued reproduction will harm some children severely, and benefit none.”

Singer then invites readers to engage in a thought experiment: “So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!”

“Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend [this scenario], because it makes us better off — for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations — and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off,” he continued.

Singer distances himself from Benatar’s conclusions, however, and says, “I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe.” Nevertheless, he said that for the human race to continue justifying reproducing itself over the next two centuries, individuals should ask themselves the hard questions of, “Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?”

Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith, a longtime critic of Singer’s work, responded to Singer’s recent article, saying, “This is nihilism on stilts and it is polluting the West’s self confidence and belief in universal human equality like the BP oil well is polluting the Caribbean.

“Only the resulting mess isn’t measured in polluted beaches and dead birds, but existential despair that destroys human lives.”

“Under the influence of anti-human advocates like Peter Singer, we have gone in the West from seeking to ‘secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity,’ to seriously questioning whether there should be any posterity at all,” Smith wrote on his blog. “This is not healthy. But it is the natural consequence of rejecting human exceptionalism.”





Latest Brave New World
- School Inoculates Third Grader in 'Vaccine Pilot Program' Without Parental Permission
- Parents told to vaccinate newborn or have him seized by the state
- Actress Denounced Over Refusal to Vaccinate Kids
- Vegas Residents Sign Petition to 'Lower Kids' IQs' with Fluoride
- Forced Medicine: The Philosophy Behind Fluoridation
- Former Marine claims military vaccines gave him brain damage
- Our Masters See Us As Cattle -- Or Guinea Pigs
- Veteran Class Certified in Drug 'Guinea Pig' Case









Comments 1 - 4 of 4 Add Comment Page 1 of 1
Anonymous

Posted: Jun 10 2010, 12:24 PM

Link
18491 This man should start with killing himself and his family, piss on these misanthropist who foment humans are no good. if he does not want to kill himself I,am sure he wont have to look far to find a volunteer to do it for him.
Anonymous

Posted: Jun 14 2010, 11:44 PM

Link
99141 Perhaps this person should take into account other free thinkers that are optimists and can create a better future without the greed of corporations ruining our environment. If we can get forward thinkers with pro-active approaches vs re-active approaches, our society would be better off. So perhaps this person has overthought his own value and him and Benatar should choose to suicide instead of infanticide. Why destroy a future leader or thinker that create a more harmonous way of life? Ponder on that Benatar and Singer.
Anonymous

Posted: Jun 28 2010, 11:02 PM

Link
2417 Sounds like the logic of a pissy drunk:

1. I'm a worthless piece of shit.
2. You're no better than me.
Anonymous

Posted: Jul 10 2012, 1:10 PM

Link
99196 Just to think that Peter Singer was the beginning of the animal rights movement in the USA. No wonder, with a professor like this, why animal rights activist hate humans so much. Believe he failed in his run for the Green Party in AU because many people see him not as a visionary, but "as something else" and " on the loose! Scary and "the father of animal rights". No wonder why humans have less rights than animals it appears from what I have read. I believe he was in the Oxford Group, the think tank to invent the Animal Rights theories and refine them before many moved over to the USA.


Add Comment
Name
Comment

* No HTML


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below
 


PLEASE NOTE
Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.


FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



Advanced Search
Username:

Password:

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Register

Senator Wants DUI Charges Dismissed Citing that Lawmakers are "Privileged from Arrest" - 01/25Man Acquitted Of Stabbing A Police Officer, Juror Says He Was "Protecting His Family" - 01/25"I'm So Ashamed" - Meet The Drone Operator Who Helped Kill 1,626 People And Walked Away - 01/25One in Three Americans Believe Police 'Routinely Lie': Survey - 01/17Cop Shot by Cop From Another Force Who "Feared For His Safety" - 01/25Sheriff's Deputy Enjoys Paid Vacation While Criminal DUI Case Against Him Proceeds - 01/25The Truth About American Sniper From An Iraq Combat Vet Marine - 01/23US Supreme Court Considers Random Use Of Drug Dogs During Traffic Stops - 01/23

Man Follows Speeding Cop, Finds Out He Was Speeding To Buy PeanutsMission Creeps: Homeland Security Agents Confiscate Women's Panties For 'Copyright Infringement'Cop Shoots Couple's Dog, Threatens Jail For Trying To Save Dog's LifeSWAT Team Shoots Teen Girl & Her Dog During Pot Raid On Wrong HomeDurham, NC Cop Testifies Faking 911 Calls To Enter Homes Is "Official Policy"Indiana Sheriff Says US A "War Zone" To Justify New MRAP Military VehicleTampa Cops Surveil Pot Dealer, Catch Him Selling Pot, Raid His Home & Kill Him"You Just Shot An Unarmed Man!": Witness Says Police Shot His Friend With His Hands Up
(more)

 
Top