Peter Singer is an amoral fuck -- speaking as an atheist. On morality, children, infanticide, and abortions.

Peter Singer is an amoral fuck -- speaking as an atheist. On morality, children, infanticide, and abortions...

Today I started watching a debate between David Silverman and Dinesh D'Souza:

Peter Singer:

 "...human babies are not born self-aware ... they are not persons ... the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."

Silverman doesn't speak for all atheists. Atheism is not a religion per se, and we aren't required to join hands with everyone who may be classified as an atheist.

Merry Christmas. Happy Solstice. Merry Festivus. Whatever. I don't have a problem with any of these unlike Silverman. 

And Singer's past comments are disturbing, wrong, and amoral. Religion is a natural phenomenon. Whatever good comes from religion still is natural, not supernatural. So Dinesh should make note of that, if he can. And at the same time, being an atheist doesn't have to mean being a zero population growth ultra-leftie.

Singer is a fucking nut, speaking frankly...

More info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/

I don't have a problem with American Atheists as a group per se, but I'm not into leader-worship though. So Silverman is just plain wrong on the specific point of Singer's morality or lack thereof. Since atheism is not a religion per se we're not obliged to kowtow to arguments from authority.

There is a theme of relativistic amorality in the ivory tower. I agree with the assessment of Steven Pinker and Sam Harris about the state of higher education in America, with their belief in the blank slate, and advocacy for cultural & moral relativism so anally retentive that it's no problem for these people if religions oppress their own people. Who are we to say what's moral? We are. And not everything is relative...

Related links:

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

''...the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled..."

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full#aff-1

While I agree that abortion in the first two trimesters should remain legal, I think there's good arguments to be made for highly discouraging the practice at the very least during that time, and good reason to bar it legally after the first two trimesters:

Pro-life atheists insist that a human life has intrinsic value, even though they don't believe in God.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/11/28/no-god-and-no-abortions.html

Hitchens on abortion:

So, I do differ with Singer. I'd rather see all the dogs and pigs on this planet destroyed than to see one innocent human child killed. So, how's that for atheist morality?

It's not the atheism or theism that's the issue here. Most people have built in morals, except for psychopaths and sociopaths, and people who've spent far too much time in the morally & culturally relativistic sewer of academia.

Sam Harris quote:

“For nearly a century, the moral relativism of science has given faith-based religion--that great engine of ignorance and bigotry--a nearly uncontested claim to being the only universal framework for moral wisdom. As a result, the most powerful societies on early spend their time debating issues like gay marriage when they should be focused on problems like nuclear proliferation, genocide, energy security, climate change, poverty, and failing schools.”

 and another from Harris:

"...the consequences of moral relativism have been disastrous. And science's failure to address the most important questions in human life has made it seem like little more than an incubator for technology. It has also given faith-based religion -- that great engine of ignorance and bigotry -- a nearly uncontested claim to being the only source of moral wisdom. This has been bad for everyone. What is more, it has been unnecessary -- because we can speak about the well-being of conscious creatures rationally, and in the context of science. I think it is time we tried."

 -------------------------

1-8-12 addendum:

Video commentary added:

And another blog post:


atheist morality: response to Peter Singer, Moshe Averick: after birth abortions, infanticide, and human rights
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/atheist-morality-response-to-peter.html