Charlie Rose - Peter Singer

[simysimss]

interesting video and very informative

[MrJonkelp]

some great inforamtion here thanks

[deanmullen10]

I think and hope this century will be a turning point, people are becoming more aware and giving to the poor will become more common and furthermore come the middle of the century its not too inconceivable that most jobs will be performed by robot workers, so robots could make things for free, distribute for free, exc. people will be jobless yet nevertheless most things will be free.

[DogsneedpIeasuretoo]

<3 Singer

[DogsneedpIeasuretoo]

<3 Singer

[officialmer]

Leave Princeton a bit - walk around - go to Detroit and the Ozarks where schools are needed. Go to the undereducated mining town where Oxycontin flows like wine and there's not alot of opportunity other than waiting 4 ur spot to open. Then you can talk about no poverty in the U.S.

[MrDanielHen]

@officialmer I live in the Ozarks. We have schools, and plenty of them.

[MrDanielHen]

@officialmer It seems Singer was saying there isn't or wasn't poverty in the U.S. (speaking overall).

[tobynsaunders]

"the US has functioned well without poverty"?... Singer has some excellent views, but that one is way off. The US uses poverty to its horrible advantage via exploitation of workers in other nations and, furthermore, poverty exists in the US... about 45 million out of 310 million are in poverty in the US.

[mphello]

Only extremist politically correct assholes have the nerve to complain about anything Dr Peter Singer says. If you don't give up meat, even though the inconvenience to you is trivial compared to the torture of the animal, then you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO right to make ANY moral or legal judgements about ANYTHING by ANYBODY ANYWHERE at ANY time in history.

[caveatemp]

How can anyone take Singer seriously when he condones certain types of bestiality?

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp You ask that as though the moral wrongness of bestiality is self-evident. In any case, I'm pretty sure he's never said that he condones it; as far as I know, he's only ever asked why it is that we do think bestiality is wrong.

[caveatemp]

@ToyBoxMonster Well, it's self evident to me that bestiality is wrong- in every possible way. Watch the interview with William Crawley, part 3. Singer says he doesn't give it his "blessing", whatever that means, but that he doesn't find bestiality or pedophilia (or anything else as far as I can tell) as intrinsically wrong. His only hard and fast rule is about suffering. His philosophy taken to it's extreme would lead to a "Brave New World" scenario.

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp You're free to show me why it is wrong. Taken as you give it to me, your comment is no different from the claim: "Well, it's self-evident to me that interracial sex is wrong", or the claim "Well, it's self-evident to me that homosexuality is wrong". If there is no harm done to anyone, then it seems to me that there is no basis on which to say that it is wrong.

[caveatemp]

@ToyBoxMonster It's the same as proclaiming to be God. You can only say you know there has been no harm done in bestiality, pedophilia, homosexuality, euthanasia, infanticide, etc. if you can see all of history form beginning to end. Singer says there are no intrinsically wrong actions and in the same breath says that actions that unnecessarily harm animals and humans are wrong. Incidentally, what about the harm done to plants through genetic manipulation? I would certainly support him there.

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp And, lastly, when he (or most people) speak of harm, they're talking about something that the being to which harm is being done is able to perceive. If you'll read just the first 10-20 pages of Animal Liberation, you'll have a clear understanding of what he means by harm. He (and certainly I) would not hold that something that is not conscious can possibly be harmed.

[caveatemp]

@ToyBoxMonster So does this belief justify genetic manipulation of plants? Your thinking is one dimensional. If GMOs are shown to cause disease in humans, then yes, harming an unconscious life form is wrong. There is also the assumption that plants are not conscious in this reasoning. Have you ever read The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Tompkins?

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp This is ridiculous. GMOs cause disease in humans. Causing these diseases is what EVEN YOU are calling wrong. If GMOs did not cause disease in humans, then it would not be wrong. We are not harming the plant (as far as we know); we are harmind the humans. If plants are indeed conscious, then they may have interests. These, of course, would have to be factored in the equation. First, we need to determine whether they are conscious, which ones are, and to what extent.

[caveatemp]

@ToyBoxMonster You fail to see that we live in one ecosystem. You can't separate out the harm done to one species or group without affecting the rest. Your factoring would have to be equal or greater than an omniscient God for this reasoning to work.

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp Your comment about his views leading to a "Brave New World" scenario demonstrates that you have little to no understanding of utilitariansim. Read some of RM Hare's work, read "Peter Singer Under Fire", and then see what you think.

[caveatemp]

@ToyBoxMonster First, what does it mean for a self proclaimed atheist to withhold his blessing from bestiality and pedophilia?

Second, I have heard the argument that an omniscient, omnipotent, all good God cannot exist because of unnecessary suffering in the world. It seems Singer's and your claim to know when "no harm is done to anyone" falls in the same category of knowing what "unnecessary suffering" is. It's as absurd and unscientific as saying there is "unnecessary pleasure."

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp Once again, you obviously don't even understand what is being discussed. I'm not even sure why you bothered to write the first question. Obviously, he only means that he won't go on record to say that he "officially" approves of it. If you had read any of Singer's work, you'd know that when he speaks of unnecessary suffering, he means suffering that is not bringing about more preference satisfaction than it brings about preference frustration.

[caveatemp]

@ToyBoxMonster If he doesn't officially approve of bestiality and pedophilia and he doesn't officially disapprove then he has in fact said nothing substantial about them. He's being evasive about it because he does have a taboo about them and he should. You can theorize all day about these things but no one can live by them. Do you want to live next door to people who are into bestiality and pedophilia- presuming that all animals and children are consenting and unharmed?

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp He's being evasive because the interviewer is trying to corner hm. He doesn't "officially approve" likely because he isn't familiar with the research that has been done about the harmful or the lack of harmful psychological effects of such things. If, however, it does happen to be the fact that absolutely no harm is done by these activities, then on what basis are you calling them wrong? Simply uour own society's taboos. And on what are they based?

[caveatemp]

@ToyBoxMonster So do you want to live next to a pedophile or not? Given two neighborhoods: one where people are strictly monogamous in their sexuality and are radically generous with their money OR one where people are completely perverse in their sex life and completely greedy with their money, which would you rather live? Which would you prefer to raise your children?

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp Ah... let's see. The first question relies on the assumption that pedophilia is wrong. If I grant this (which, to the best of my knowledge), I should, then I'd rather not. The second question is much stranger, because it assumes that monogamy is the only moral type of relationship (which I do not grant) and does not specify what having a "perverse" sex life means.

[caveatemp]

@ToyBoxMonster See? When it come down to the nitty gritty you won't say "yeah, I want to live next to the pedophile." I qualified saying that no one was harmed and all children and pets were consenting. And say no harm was done in the wife swapping neighborhood, would you rather live there or the other?

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp I didn't realise that you had specified that absolutely no one was harmed as a result of this practice. If this is true, then I see no reason for calling it wrong, and so I don't see why I should mind living next to the pedophile. As I mentionned before, I see nothing wrong with polygamy or "wife-swapping". But, again, you've failed to tell me how you judge actions to be wrong, if not by the harm that they cause.

[caveatemp]

@ToyBoxMonster I can tell you how I judge but first let's be clear. Given that no one is harmed according to Singer's and your specifications, you would choose living in a neighborhood where everyone around you was into bestiality, pedophilia, and adulterous marriage and absolutely stingy with their money as opposed to a neighborhood where everyone lived monogamous heterosexual lives with no bestiality, pedophilia, etc. and who were also radically generous with their money. Is that right?

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp Why in the world do you keep including stinginess and generosity? Do you think that Singer and I (and other utilitarians) hold that everyone should hoard money or somthing?

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp I have to be going now. I do hope you'll answer the question about the money so that we may resume the discussion.

[caveatemp]

@ToyBoxMonster Detto, fatto.

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp In addition to letting me know what your criteria for moral actions are, I'd like to know why you did include the notion of greed vs generosity in your example. That was rather confusing.

[caveatemp]

@ToyBoxMonster I wonder why, given a straight forward hypothetical situation, you can't answer it without first asking me a barrage of questions. Could it be you have some innate sense of what is wrong and what is right?

I am quite aware that Singer is an avid proponent of generosity and voluntary simplicity.

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp No, I can't answer simply because the answer will change if you remove the generosity from the equation. I already know that stinginess causes harm. IF pedophilia is found to cause no harm (which is, of course, purely hypothetical, since there is documentation of its harm) and the same is found of those other things, then, since monogomy, lack of pedophilia, and lack of bestiality are not IMMORAL, whereas greed is, I'd rather live in the generous society.

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp If, however, generosity is taken out of the equation, then I don't think I'd have a preference either way.

[caveatemp]

@ToyBoxMonster Can you imagine a situation where greed would cause no harm? If not, then it is a moral absolute.

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp Once again, a more in-depth understanding of utilitarianism would make this conversation more productive. You're presenting some form of caricaturised consequentialism. I can imagine situations where holding on to money can lead to good consequenes (say, if I were raising money to build a school, etc), but greed, by definition, involves self-concern. Even if we were living in a world where no one were poor, I suppose greeed would lead to poverty. So I can't imagine such a situation.

[caveatemp]

@ToyBoxMonster I suppose your sense that greed is a moral absolute is also conditioned? Greed makes more sense in terms of evolution. You certainly don't see radical generosity and self giving in the animal and plant world as a rule. Anyway, Singer is saying there are no intrinsic 'oughts', no moral absolutes. Only choices which lead to more or less suffering. I take it that greed is where you part ways with him?

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp I'm very confused by the way that you're trying to hold me to all sorts of strange viewpoints. Greed is a trait, not an action. I wouldn't say that greed is, in itself immoral. I hold that a moral action in a situation is the one that brings about the greatest utility. Since actions motivated by greed (for example, my hoarding millions of dollars instead of using them to help people in need) lead to lessened utility, they tend to be immoral ones.

[caveatemp]

@ToyBoxMonster I think your just squirming now. You want to eat your cake and have it too. Either opposition to greed is a moral statement or it isn't. What's this crap about a distinction between a trait and an action? It is what it is. It's either a hypothetical situation or a real action or a habitual pattern of action, they are all aspects or views of greed. If you determine the greatest utility it's on completely subjective basis.

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp Squirming? How? I'm quite confident with my ethical position, I assure you. I get the sense that you're Christian. Let's use a hypothetical Christian, just in case you're not. Let's say I'm very greedy. I am possessed with an intense desire to acquire money at other peoples' expense. However, I am able, because I am a rational, thinking creature, to give my money [insert good cause] despite my inclination not to. Even though I have the trait that is greed, I am not being immoral.

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp That is all that I meant.

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp Sorry. I missed two things. So yes, I do think that we should be raised not to be greedy (the trait, which I believe can be conditioned), because this trait often leads to the external realisation of greed-motivated actions, which, by definition, are self-benefiting, which will certainly reduce utility. I'm not even sure I understand your last statement. It seems that you're saying that there's no way to determine when the gretest utility is being produced...

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp While, of course, I can't have any "absolute" knowledge (who knows? Perhaps each time I kiss my girlfriend, ten Africans die, by some strange natural law that we do not know of), I can work with what knowledge I do have. And this is where intent comes into play.

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp Hah! I forgot all about my hypothetical Christian. I was going to say, would the hypothetical Christian not say that, even though I am a greedy individual (I have a desire to hoard money, etc), the fact that I have this other desire (to do good, whatever) and am able to apply it to my greed makes me a moral person? That's basically all that I'm getting at. We really should take this discussion elsewhere. I have so much to say and there's so little room.

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp Something I was going to add earlier: your idea of an "innate" sense of morality is quite odd. Your sense of morality isn't innate; it's conditioned. Because of your upbringing, you probably believe that, say... sex with a 14-year-old is morally wrong. However, in Iceland, 14 is the age of consent. In the US, it's 18. I don't know about many other nations' ages of consent, but let's imagine there's a Nation X, where the age of consent is 21.

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp (Many of) the residents of Nation X would grow up with the belief that an adult engaging in sexual intercourse with people under the age of 21 is doing something morally wrong. When asked the same kinds of questions that you've been asking me, they might hesitate not because of some sort of sense of what is inherently wrong or right, but simply because they've been raised to have a certain sense of rightnessa nd wrongness.

[caveatemp]

@ToyBoxMonster I don't take any issue with the age of consent. In non-technological cultures the age of consent is at puberty. That seems perfectly rational and "right". There is a big difference between a culturally sanctioned law and an absolute moral law. The first is arbitrary and depends on the age and locale. The latter is innate and God given. Pedophilia is purposeless for reproduction and harmful to the psyche, absolutely. We may have to agree to disagree on that one.

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp What does and does not count as pedophilia is defined by the age of consent. Here in Canada, a 19-year-old who engages in sexual relations with a 14-year-old is a pedophile. In Iceland, not so. Do you mean to say that, as soon as reproduction is possible, sex is okay? Do you suppose that sex the day before a girl starts menstrating is harmful to psyche, but that sex the next day is quite all right?

[ToyBoxMonster]

@caveatemp From what little I do know, I suspect that pedophilia has tremendously harmful effects. I know little about bestiality, so like Singer, I can't say for certain that I do not think it wrong. All I do say is that, if there are no harmful effects as far as anyone can tell, then there's no reason for calling it wrong.

[evilbisback]

@skikusmetalicus: While it's true that some people in America are poorer than others, you don't see very much of the kind of poverty Singer is talking about, where thousands of people die from starvation every day, and young children often die from easily preventable causes like malaria and diarrhea. Singer's simply saying that THAT kind of poverty, where a large portion of the population cannot meet the basic needs of survival, isn't necessary in order to secure prosperity.

[skinkusmetalicus]

Peter, you are a fucking moron!!!!! At 2:50 you say Marx was wrong and that America has functioned quite well without poverty. When did America not have poverty? Ever seen the ghetto? I liked Singer because he is a vegetarian but he is a beginner in political economy. Typical statement from a middle class Jew I suppose. I cannot believe he said that. I'm devastated and angry.

Never trust a Jew who is trying to pretend he understands poverty. Trying to trick you into trusting him. Nothing else!

[mphello]

@skinkusmetalicus Nothing about Singer is Jewish. He's Australian. And nothing wrong with being Jewish.

And even if I am wrong (who knows? maybe I am) that is completely irrelevant to the points he makes.

But, kudos! and thumbs up to you for being a fellow vegetarian!

[skinkusmetalicus]

Peter, you are a fucking moron!!!!! At 2:50 you say Marx was wrong and that America has functioned quite well without poverty. When did America not have poverty? Ever seen the ghetto? I liked Singer because he is a vegetarian but he is a beginner in political economy. Typical statement from a middle class Jew I suppose. I cannot believe he said that. I'm devastated and angry.

Never trust a Jew who is trying to pretend he understands poverty. Tricking you into trusting him. Nothing else!

[clairepinkysister]

@avisionofsorrow You can take anything in Singer's books completely out of context to make him look bad. It's philosophy for goodness sake. He doesn't actually think we should kill newborn babies, he just explores the reasons why society rejects things like infanticide so fully. It is scientifically true that a newborn baby is less intelligent than a pig and therefore it is philosophically accurate to state that if we kill adult pigs, killing a human infant is no different.

[avisionofsorrow]

"If the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby does not either, and the life of a newborn baby is of less value to it than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee is to the nonhuman animal. If we can put aside these emotionally moving but strictly irrelevant aspects of the killing of a baby we can see that the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants. (Practical Ethics)"

Nice guy.

[lodberg1]

If only every citizen in the western world would give 1% of their income to the poor people in the world, poverty would be history

[CmdrTobs]

@lodberg1 Yes, and not even everyone, if the top 1% in the western world gave 1% poverty would probably be history.

[tabber87]

What's the difference between a dead baby and poverty?

Peter Singer isn't responsible for poverty.

[skinkusmetalicus]

"America has functioned quite well without poverty"? Peter spends time in the U.S.. I cannot believe he has not seen the immense poverty there. What is he saying? Surely he understands that capitalist imperialism loves poverty and that is for example the reason why companies are relocating to China and other third world countries. I cannot believe that he is just ignoring this. I hope that he is not starting to think that he is better than Karl Marx on this. He has just said that Marx was wrong.

[CmdrTobs]

@skinkusmetalicus Yeah, look at the video quality to be fair, it smacks of the early 80's/late 70's where America was just coming out of industrial engineer led economy where a man could sell his labour to Ford and have a house and car fully paid for in 5yrs.

[smokinbill]

he missed the biggest reason: people are kept in poverty so you and me can be kept in luxury - simple as that.

[saxengee]

'America has functioned well without poverty?' I'm Australian & I apologise on behalf of Australians who arent intelectual fukwits- someone offered me a free ticket to see this guy.. knew nothing about him. Glad I said No! sorry agin YT

[bayesianconspiracy]

@saxengee

Singer's definition of poverty and the working definition of most aid groups (e.g., UNICEF) is living on less than $1US/day. Virtually nobody in America is that poor, not even the homeless. When he says "poverty" he means something very concrete, not just "poor people."

[CmdrTobs]

@bayesianconspiracy To be fair Singer said so in terms of US development. The US did like the 3rd world 100+ or so years ago have toil classes who sweated their labor for the functional equivalent of poverty and had 'free' workers even before that.

[littleumbrellas37]

...so that they can maintain that same level of profit. This is a level of greed that is beyond pathological. It is literally absurd if you think about it for any extended amount of time. They have used that money and the influence it buys to convince a large amount of people in the U.S. that they should fear the government and blame it for their problems. This is interesting considering that congress basically does what benefits big business. This has been going on for thirty years now. =/

[littleumbrellas37]

So say congress rolls back those tax breaks. Corporate crusaders will attack this and say that it will lead to higher prices, less jobs, etc. That is, taxing the wealthy will have negative effects on society through some means or another. This is accurate, but one has to examine why it is the case. The wealthy do not want any downsizing of their lifestyle. They are perfectly willing to lay off thousands, raise prices on consumer goods (which amounts to a tax on the working class), etc.

[littleumbrellas37]

.....through the outsourcing of labor and increasing role of automation, corporations provide fewer and fewer jobs domestically. The same benefits of social labor and production can be enjoyed without having this parasitic entity funneling capital, and by extension, resources into the hands of a few at the expense to society as a whole. Perhaps one day more people will wake up.

[caltrop69]

Wow! He got old and ugly.

[6678]

Lol! No, he looks better old. Have you seen him when he was younger...talk about ugly.

[WizardsStaff]

Sad to think you will share the same fate, eh? If you are lucky enough to make it to old age that is.

[mellowtribe]

The problem with these people that are always wanting to give more for the poor quite often never give anything themselves. The Obama's were found to have given $3,000 dollars to charity. And politicians like the Kennedys and Al Gore also give very little. Many Limosine Liberals give nothing at all aswell in fact a new documentary is comming out that shows Liberals stash money over seas to avoid taxes.

[tomgissing]

Peter Singer gives a lot mate.

[thepassives]

You've missed the point, oh well.

[claris2991]

If that is true or not I do not know. But I say that everyone should take a certain level of personal responsibility. Just becasue someone else does not give $ or help out does not make it right for other people to not give. It just makes them both wrong.

[bapyou]

The largest amount of welfare goes to corporations in the form of tax breaks and subsidies. All for them ... at taxpayer expense. Why are you not angry about that?

[mellowtribe]

Corporations pay taxes and create wealth and employ thousands of people who also pay taxes, buy houses are taxed on the houses. Buy cars are taxed on the cars, register their cars every year. So you see the cut in taxes actually brings in more revenue than raising them. Its not welfare its a tax break. If it were welfare the corporation would not be doing anything but collecting money and not making any.

[littleumbrellas37]

@mellowtribe

This idea that corporations are this foundational structure in our society is interesting. The narrative says that corporations are this force for good (jobs, production, etc.), and that whatever negative side effects result are to be minimized or ignored. The question is who ultimately benefits. The primary stockholders are the ones that benefit from our current system. They want to maintain a certain level of capital, increase it if possible.

[firstlk420]

ugh, Im dumb as a rock and even I know the big issue here is a empire that supports only the people who help obtain resources in whatever way posible. Why do you think are two party system has become such a joke and circus act? Because its suppose to be that way so as to make people feel like they belong to the system no matter what. Slaves who dont know they're slaves, thinking how can they help those poor people. While the poor people with guns say No way, and the rest are just tired.

[DavidAKZ]

The economic and political wealth of the US was founded on 300 years of slavery and successive waves of poor migrants . I think PS is an apologist for the North American ruling class

[creten69]

i really dont see why we cant have global child nuetering???Kids suck,just like we did.Its all work.Loving one woman,what horseshit.

[WhoRonPaul]

economy is artificial.

the earth grows plenty of food, supplies all we need for clothing and provides fresh water automatically. We dont need anything more than what makes the heart happy.

[DavidAKZ]

why do I have to stay in a job to pay my water bill then ?

[WhoRonPaul]

yours would be a lifestyle choice. i'm not saying it's a wrong choice, i'm just saying there are other choices in life and that some appear less desirable than others... on the surface

[ReliableInsider]

But, the artificial economy has corrupted the water we drink and the very air we breath to the point where they are causing some of the cancers adults and children are dying of.

All we need are a sandwich, a beer, and fresh air and clean water but preserving the latter two are going to require that we completely rethink what a corporation is allowed to do to them.

Corporations should bear the cost of the effort it takes to clean up after them. Including surgery and chemotherapy.

[WhoRonPaul]

no argument here.. your preaching to the choir. within that system theres a lot of shared responsibility that is being neglected at this point. the only hope would be of course...more regulation (which is problematic because more regulation equals less free market mechanisms) .. it's a bad system...

[ReliableInsider]

Oh, okay. Everything in comments is too abbreviated for any of us to understand each other really. I'm sure I misinterpret people all the time.

I think it's part of the free market, though.

A company would like to take the profits for itself and leave the costs of its actions to others to pick up, but that shouldn't be an option.

If the company is paying all of its own costs itself, that creates the incentive to reduce unnecessary costs.

[bahramf]

You're saying it has to be in the corporations own interest, ie. there have to be laws against contaminating or using mass amount of drinking water to make coca-cola, and laws/regulations against spilling oil in the ocean.

Makes sense to me.

[ReliableInsider]

Yeah.

Every time a corporation pollutes and causes a huge increase in healthcare costs or forces the government or the private sector to spend in order to clean up the mess, the polluter should pay.

That's one of the roles government can play: determining in a fair and objective way which corporation polluted the water and which one didn't.

That gives corporations a financial incentive not to pollute their neighbor's property or kill their neighbor's children (e.g. by carcinogens).

[RPFS2008]

@ReliableInsider

"If the company is paying all of its own costs itself, that creates the incentive to reduce unnecessary costs."

Agreed. That's why we need a market economy, not a State/Corporation controlled economy.

[elieakaMrextreme]

@ReliableInsider Fuck you Corporations should be able to do what ever they want an we need to abolish the minimum wage law & all labor safety laws !!!!!!!!!!!!

go fuck your self Greene!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ReliableInsider]

@elieakaMrextreme

You think corporations should be able to do whatever they want? Including killing children?

Is that same true for individual people? Should an individual be able to kill children, too, any time he wants?

[tomhahnl]

the world can not support 6 billion rich or middle class people. If the population shrinks poverty shrinks too.

That's the only chance!

[thpt]

Glad to see someone's looking at poverty as a fixable problem and making workable plans. To Daily, below: you've obviously never been in that situation. It is shocking to me that we force our own children through fatal, useless agony to which we wouldn't subject the family dog.

[CIDaily]

So i take it you do not believe disabled humans have the right to life like other human beings?

How do you define disabled?

I take it you support eugenics?

[CIDaily]

Q: Would you kill a disabled baby?

SINGER: Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman's right to have an abortion.

He added that one point on which he agrees with the pro-life movement is that, "from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby."

Its true...Google: "Would you kill a disabled baby"

[midbluegreen]

i'll kill all disabled beings gladly to relief them from their agony in this life.

[CIDaily]

So i take it you do not believe disabled humans have the right to life like other human beings?

How do you define disabled?

I take it you support eugenics?

[milfrie]

it may be a shock to you but some disabled people find that offensive and hold thier lives dear. I happen to know a few.

[DavidAKZ]

Oh, susbscribe to your valuse system on what suffering is ? No thanks God. Not today

[holymolydude]

Theres no reason for humans to be brought into this world with preventable horrendous disabilities and there are plenty of possible physical conditions where its a mercy to let someone die with dignity instead of forcing them to half live in torment using the same science you'd have called "playing God" had it been used sanely. Just because you have an emotional reaction doesn't mean its wrong.

[CIDaily]

You realize that Singer is advocating not for abortion of the disabled but also kill of the disabled AFTER they are born. How does that square with equality, justice, and our constitution?

[DavidAKZ]

That' is fine until you find yourself in such a position. I note when PS found his mother had Alzheimers, he did miraculously manage to find compassion for her instead of the cold hard logic that applies to the rest of us. Utilitarianism as an argument boils down to access to resources IMHO