Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Peter Singer and infanticide.

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by IntellectSucks, May 12, 2008.

  1. IntellectSucks

    IntellectSucks IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    233
    Peter Singer and infanticide.

    Peter Singer has put out the argument that since infants lack the capability to reason and are for the most part not self aware, that they are not defined as people and as such, infanticide is not only morally acceptable but in some cases morally superior.

    What do you think of this train of thought?

    I have an opinion but I'd like to hear other's points of view before I chime in.
     
  2. Mcwhopper

    Mcwhopper IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2006
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    Re: Peter Singer and infanticide.

    What part of infanticide is morally superior to what exactly?

    Is it morally superior to not killing an infant? Is it superior when the infant has multiple health problems/mental problems?

    The spartans followed that line of thinking. A retarded or sick infant would be left outside of the city to perish.

    From an evolution point of view this is the best thing to do: It keeps the species healthy. Animal breeders also put sick or retarded animals to sleep.

    Morally though, it's a tough nut to crack.


    After giving it some thought: It's a touchy subject, but I think there are some diseases that would cause euthanasia on infants to be "acceptable".

    Just killing infants for no apparent reason (real infanticide) is repulsive.
     
  3. Tanooki

    Tanooki IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,117
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Re: Peter Singer and infanticide.

    It's the logical conclusion to the ideas that make abortion sound reasonable. He's got guts/balls to admit it.
     
  4. Johnny

    Johnny Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    9,101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Peter Singer and infanticide.

    The bible supports abortion so why not?
     
  5. Tanooki

    Tanooki IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,117
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Re: Peter Singer and infanticide.

    Chapter/verse?
     
  6. Mcwhopper

    Mcwhopper IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2006
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    Re: Peter Singer and infanticide.

    The bible might (does it?) the christian church doesnt.

    What do you think?
     
  7. Johnny

    Johnny Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    9,101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Peter Singer and infanticide.

    Hit a woman so she loses her fruit. Pay a fine yaddi yadda you get the drill.



     
  8. AeroJonesy

    AeroJonesy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    12,940
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Re: Peter Singer and infanticide.

    Well it's based on a weird definition of what a person is. He's defined it such that his logic appears to make sense, but I take issue with the initial premise that a "person" is one who is self-aware and capable of reasoning.

    There's really not much to say except that I think that definition is a terrible one.
     
  9. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Re: Peter Singer and infanticide.

    Let's see - a terrible argument, poor definition of terms, a disconnect from logic, and a conclusion seemingly only for shock value. Sounds like this Peter Singer is an OTF regular.
     
  10. Tanooki

    Tanooki IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,117
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Re: Peter Singer and infanticide.

    So unless the Bible says to kill someone, it's supporting their actions? That's logical. (Also, that's "Mosaic Law" you're talking about, not "The Bible".)
     
  11. WildBerry

    WildBerry IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    6,328
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Re: Peter Singer and infanticide.

    He's not a person when he sleeps as he clearly is neither aware of himself or capable of reasoning as per request: you might want to pay him a visit.



     
  12. Johnny

    Johnny Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    9,101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Peter Singer and infanticide.

    It equates the vallue of an unborn child with that of property.



     
  13. Mcwhopper

    Mcwhopper IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2006
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    Re: Peter Singer and infanticide.

    If you request him load enough, he will be able to reason and answer you. Most likely he'll be asking you very loadly wtf your doing in his sleeping chamber.

    The same set of arguments are used when debating abortion, people view them as valid seemingly since abortion is allowed in dozens of countries.

    A person is someone who is self aware and capable of reasoning, I dont think that's very far from the truth. Can you give me another proper description?
     
  14. WildBerry

    WildBerry IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    6,328
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Re: Peter Singer and infanticide.

    If you keep querying a child long enough, it will eventually answer. Sure, it'll take year or so. But it will answer. Either that defense or the logic fails; since I wouldn't like to blame you for his silliness, the issue lies with the logic.



     
  15. Mcwhopper

    Mcwhopper IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2006
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    Re: Peter Singer and infanticide.

    So what exactly is your point? Do you disagree with the fact that he states that reason and selfawareness are what makes a person a person?
    Or do you disagree with his opinion that children under a certain age are not real persons because they can not reason?

    Or let me ask you a question : What do you think of infanticide as I described it? This means letting those die that would just weaken the human race, just as the Spartans did. Letting children die that are either destined to live as aplant attached to a machine or will suffer extreme physical distress and pain since they suffer from a certain disease that can't be cured.

    If you think that is utter bs, how do you feel about normal animal breeding. Do you think those animal breeders should also keep the sick and insane alive?

    If you think that the animal breeder can but humans can't then why is that? What makes us so different from animals then?



     
  16. IntellectSucks

    IntellectSucks IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    233
    Re: Peter Singer and infanticide.

    You should stop talking about religion. Your lack of knowledge in this area makes you look silly.

    Self aware and capable of reasoning? Hmmmmmm, sounds kind of vague. Are downs syndrome patients self aware and capable of reasoning? How bout coma patients? How bout people with brain damage?

    The problem with this type of "logic", is that it is the ultimate argument that is susceptible to the slippery slope. Instead of valueing ALL human life, you have now valued some human lives less than others. Once you do that, it's very easy to slide that definition around to include more and more humans. Totalitarians love people like this, as it gives their homicidal rantings some intellectual creedence. The first step to genocide is to define one class of human life as less valuable than another.

    Yes actually. He is arguing that it is always acceptable to kill an infant, but sometimes it is morally unacceptable to let an infant live (health/mental problems).

    Also, the part about infanticide as being good from an evolutionary standpoint is not true. The wider the gene pool, the better the chances for advantageous adaptation.


     
  17. WildBerry

    WildBerry IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    6,328
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Re: Peter Singer and infanticide.

    Yes, I do disagree with it.

    A healthy child will eventually start reasoning and differentiating itself from the environment. There is no point in demanding it to be a constant unwavering condition as a definition of humanity. Grown people have lapses from and degrees of awareness too, yet not many are seriously claiming that people asleep or durnk are humans no longer and that they can be killed off with no consequence.

    I'd think you were not talking infanticide, which as a legal term pretty long was reserved for mother slaying her child. The Antiquity knew not the name of post-natal post-traumatic stress disorder, but they knew how it messed the heads.

    To address the question itself, I do not believe in pruning the gene pool. "The fittest" is a plastic concept and we know not what it will be tomorrow. As to terminal cases: if you're stuck to tubes, you probably aren't breeding either, so killing them is not really valid on that premise alone.

    Then again, I don't think I have drawn equals to -signs between man and beast for this purpose. I do not see the relevance.

    Nice try to make me to accept his view of reasoning and awareness. Even if I accept that capability to reason and awareness of oneself make one a member of humanity, me accepting his definitions of reasoning and self-awareness does not follow.



     
    Last edited: May 12, 2008
  18. Johnny

    Johnny Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    9,101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Peter Singer and infanticide.

    We can't all end arguments with "god created science so creationism wins" Some of us preffer a bit more research.



     
  19. IntellectSucks

    IntellectSucks IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    233
    Re: Peter Singer and infanticide.

    Disgusting and flawed logic. You're justifying the murder of infants because they will live in pain but why not apply this to people in pain now? Lets say you get incurable cancer, or AIDS, should I be able to kill you just because you're going to be in pain later on? When does someone else get to make judgements on whether or not a person's life is worth living? WHO makes the judgement on whether or not a person's life is worth living? Can you imagine Dick Cheney making that decision. I shudder to think.

    Just as disgusting is the comparison to animal breeders. By that logic, farms of humans to be bred, slaughtered and served as steaks would be perfectly OK.


     
  20. WildBerry

    WildBerry IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    6,328
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Re: Peter Singer and infanticide.

    That is my argument as well - although given the caveat that the current habitat is not such a demanding one that it requires us to take further evolutionary steps in a certain direction.

    We haven't had that in a while as far as I can tell, though.



     

Share This Page