Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Australia Awards Infanticide and Euthanasia guru the Highest Civic Award

Wesley Smith
Australia recently awarded Peter Singer their highest award of distinction, they made him a companion in the General Division of the Order of Australia.

Normally a nations best known philosopher would be awarded this distinction without controversy, but  Singer is known for promoting many horrific ideas.

Bioethicist Wesley Smith, wrote a commentary that was published yesterday in the National Review on the awarding of Peter Singer with the Order of Australia that was entitled: Australia Awards Infanticide guru Highest Civic Award.

Smith clearly explains what Peter Singer's ideology promotes. Smith stated:
This is a disgrace: Peter Singer has won Australia’s highest civic award. From the Princeton press release
Singer is best known for advocating the ethical propriety of infanticide. But that isn’t nearly the limit of his odious advocacy. Here is a partial list of some other notable Singer bon mots: 
Singer supports using cognitively disabled people in medical experiments instead of animals that have a higher “quality of life.” 
Singer does not believe humans reach “full moral status” until after the age of two. 
Singer supports non-voluntary euthanasia of human “non-persons.” 
Peter Singer
Singer has defended bestiality
Singer started the “Great Ape Project” that would establish a “community of equals” among humans, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, and orangutans. 
Singer supports health-care rationing based on “quality of life.” 
Singer has questioned whether “the continuance of the human species is justifiable,” since it will result in suffering. 
Singer believes “speciesism” — viewing humans as having greater value than animals — is akin to racism. 
Singer believes that animals should be given “equal consideration” with humans in utilitarian policy analyses. 
Singer asserted that Australia’s greenhouse-gas emissions are morally equivalent to “waging aggressive war on Bangladesh." 
Well, you get the idea. As the old song says, it’s a sign of the times. The more radical and anti–human exceptionalism a public intellectual’s views, the greater his or her chances are of receiving civic and academic accolades.
Comment: Smith is not alone in his disgust that Singer was awarded the Order of Australia. An article by Christian Kerr that was published in the Australian yesterday is entitled: Award for Singer 'madness.'

Whereas, I agree that Peter Singer is Australia's most famous philosopher and certainly one of the most famous philosophers in the world, I also agree that his philosophical ideology is incredibly destructive to the equality of all human beings and (if accepted) will lead to the acceptance of infanticide and non-voluntary euthanasia of people with disabilities and cognitive conditions.

The world needs more people who are willing and able to challenge and tear apart Singer's philosophy as an attack on human dignity and human equality.

4 comments:

weewaapc said...

Have we now become obsessed with our own destruction? “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20, ESV)

Roy from said...

The statement "his philosophical ideology is incredibly destructive to the equality of all human beings" seems redundant, since Singer's arguments are all based on the premise that all humans are not in fact equal. Singer merely points out the reality that all humans are not treated equally (you would not let your own child starve, but buy luxury items for yourself rather than feed the starving children in other towns, countries etc). Killing during war is accepted to promote economic interests, but ending the intractable suffering of another is wrong? Singer merely points out the intrinsic hypocrisy of refusing euthanasia while allowing war, starvation, preventable disease........

Roy from Canada said...

The statement "his philosophical ideology is incredibly destructive to the equality of all human beings" seems redundant, since Singer's arguments are all based on the premise that all humans are not in fact equal. Singer merely points out the reality that all humans are not treated equally (you would not let your own child starve, but buy luxury items for yourself rather than feed the starving children in other towns, countries etc). Killing during war is accepted to promote economic interests, but ending the intractable suffering of another is wrong? Singer merely points out the intrinsic hypocrisy of refusing euthanasia while allowing war, starvation, preventable disease........

Matteo from Italy said...

'Most famous philosphers of the world?' Please. Maybe he's famous among vegans. Or maybe it's due to the outrageous things he claims.

...and Roy, please notice that that 'intrinsic hypocrisy' is just the normal reaction of a system to the changement of its environment. So it's an hypocrisy to build fountains in happy times and save water during a drought? And that paternalistic remark about not feedeing children in other towns. Please. Is this Australia's best philosopher. Well, they were never famous for that, weren't they?

Printfriendly