Famous Princeton Professor Peter Singer is a sick man

Colleges & Universities Princeton University
21

<p>I wouldn’t post the article if I hadn’t read the article at least twice</p>

<p>According to you he is not supporting beastiality he is just leaving the door open to possibility. That is still wrong! It is like leaving the door open to rape, but not openly supporting it out of the fear of a public backlash. Singer is a public figure and I am sure that if he outright says what he so desperately wants to imply, he may see a backlash from the Pton alumni.</p>

<p>Again homosexuality is a completely different topic. That is a relationship between two consenting adults (humans!!!) who have decided to pursue an intimate social relationship. </p>

<p>During this past year, opponents of gay marriage have tried to make some type of connection between homosexuality and beastiality. THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO. Its completely different. I don’t think anybody on this board should try to make a connection between the two …</p>

22

<p>“Singer is a public figure and I am sure that if he outright says what he so desperately wants to imply, he may see a backlash from the Pton alumni.”</p>

<p>singer has tenure and says and writes whatever he wants. he really can’t get any more controversial than he already is, given his ideas not only about bestiality but also about euthanasia. but i won’t go into that, because that would only triple the length of this already-long thread in a matter of hours.</p>

23

<p>

That is not what I said. He didn’t “leave the door open to possibility”, he noted that it happens. People do it. Surely that can be denied?</p>

<p>As for your rape parallel, imagine a report that read as follows:

Would you be as incensed? More importantly, would its author be accused of supporting rape?</p>

<p>

I was not, either, comparing bestiality to homosexuality. You said, if I may paraphrase, that “bestiality is wrong, because… it’s just gross”. All I did was point out, somewhat blandly, that the same argument has been applied to homosexuality. It is not a valid point, and has no place in academic debate.</p>

24

<p>King - I suspect we have very different readings of his pieces. Why don’t you take it up with him this fall? Unfortunately, he supports his ideas quite well and thoughfully in what I’ve read of him and his documentaries, so he won’t exactly be a pushover.</p>

<p>His ideas are refreshing, if not palatable - but then again, many ideas began that way. I’ll have to go back and check but I think you had rather a less outraged moral compass about the honor code…? (seriously, I’m not sure if it was you, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong).</p>

25

<p>I’m not going to defend Singer or attack him, just point out that he is a provocative thinker and he does sometimes offer short discussions in various residential colleges as part of their lecture series. So you can go hear him and have a chance to ask your questions, without necessarily taking his course. As several posters have said, you need to pay very careful attention to what he says, because sometimes his arguments are sensationalized by others. You don’t need to agree with a thinker in order to learn from him or her. Just listening and being willing to formulate your own arguments can be pretty exciting.</p>

26

<p>You are ignoring his closing remark when he writes:</p>

<p>"This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings. "</p>

<p>This is the essence of the article</p>

<p>Lets also replace “Gross” with the words “ethically incorrect” or whatever you want to call it.</p>

<p>LOL maybe “sick” is too strong a word (even though I know that easily 95% of all Americans would definitely share my opinion) how about “disturbed”???</p>

27

<p>do you play a “helmet” sport, by chance, king?</p>

28

<p>King, I agree with your points in the last paragraph; however, they are still opinionated–you’ll need an objective statement for your argument to work. (I’m being difficult, but it’s important.) As for the last remark, I interpreted it as referring to the fact that the woman in his example had become used to being accosted by excited apes during the time she worked with them, and no longer saw their attentions as an insult to her dignity–no more than that.</p>

29

<p>that was an interesting article…have fun with the professor. i hope its not true that he’s a bore. (note, im not getting into the hooplah…)</p>

30

<p>I’ve always considered myself a moderate Populist but I think that I will actually be seen as a conservative when I get to Pton… that is going to be different.</p>

<p>I don’t remember talking about an honor code mea, so i think you do have me mixed up with another ccer</p>

<p>Singer is definitely skilled in making written and oral arguments, as all men of his academic caliber are. I’m interested in his views on world poverty and animal cruelty, but when he starts floating the possibility of beastiality being ok (Even if he never explicitly says it, you have to read between the lines) I have to take a step back and ignore this man’s academic credentials and instead look at the man. After looking him up more (as some have suggested), I find that Peter Singer approaches ethics from a Preference utilitarianism perspective.</p>

<p>This is a little background on this point of view</p>

<p>Preference utilitarianism is a particular variant of utilitarianism which defines utility in terms of preference satisfaction. So, like any utilitarian theory, preference utilitarians claim that the right thing to do is that which produces the best consequences, but they define the best consequences in terms of preference satisfaction.</p>

<p>Traditionally, utilitarians were hedonists, believing that utility consists in pleasurable mental states. So e.g. Jeremy Bentham thought that the right thing to do was to produce the most pleasure for all affected.</p>

<p>However, one problem with this view is it implies that what you don’t know can’t hurt you. For example, suppose someone secretly spread rumors behind a person’s back and thereby destroys her reputation. But further suppose that she never finds out about this and experiences no ill effects from it. In this case, since she never experiences any displeasure from the act, the act doesn’t harm her, according to the hedonist. This is often called “the experience requirement”; hedonism requires that the subject experience something in order for that thing to be good (or bad) for them.</p>

<p>On the other hand, preference utilitarianism rejects the experience requirement. Since the person has a preference (or desire) for a good reputation, spreading rumors behind her back would harm her even if she never experienced any ill effects from it.</p>

31

<p>As a matter of fact Fscottie I do play a “helmet” sport!!! </p>

<p>I am an avid bicyclist. I am a huge fan of Lance Armstrong and I am rooting for our American bicycling team… why do you ask???</p>

32

<p>In the example you cited, the person having rumors spread about her would likely experience some ill effects through people’s treatment of her–just thought I’d point that out. Interesting post, though; no sharp remarks in this one. ;)</p>

33

<p>thisyearsgirl</p>

<p>Perhaps you are right about that last remark… that may actually be his true meaning. hmm interesting. I love debate and stepping on ppl’s toes so i have enjoyed this…haven’t had a good debate in a while. I can’t wait to join Whig-Clio :)</p>

34

<p>Then he makes the insinuating remark:</p>

<p>"(But is it worse for the hen than living for a year or more crowded with four or five other hens in barren wire cage so small that they can never stretch their wings, and then being stuffed into crates to be taken to the slaughterhouse, strung upside down on a conveyor belt and killed? If not, then it is no worse than what egg producers do to their hens all the time.) "</p>

<p>Obviously, reading comprehension isn’t YOUR forte.</p>

35

<p>[specific description edited out - JEM]</p>

<p>it is a gross mischaracterization to say that singer regards this practice as “definitely moral and correct” when he denounces it, expressly and forcefully, as “cruelty, clear and simple.” evidently, he also regards the egg production process as fairly cruel, but he leaves it up to the reader to compare the respective cruelties of the two practices (note the question mark and the word “if”).</p>

36

<p>

</p>

<p>That is a strawman; Bentham did distinguish among different forms of pleasure. For example, he took into account ‘fecundity’ which is relevant to how extrinsic benefits can be attributed to the rightness of an action.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That is not the case; Bentham would argue that the extrinsic benefits/utility of having knowledge is more than the combined intrinsic/extrinsic benefits/utility of apathy; for example, the former enables one to provide wise advise, or to construct inventions that could benefit the human race. Taking these considerations into account, utilitarianism is not as flawed as perceived.</p>

<p>There is a general tendency to conflate Utilitarianism with hedonism, but that line of thinking is dangerous and it does not do utilitarianism justice…
…not that there is justice to utilitarianism, but we must all give it a fair chance if we are to engender fruitful discourse… right?</p>

<p>Edit: Let me make clear that your objection does apply to strict hedonism; however, it does not apply to any form of utilitarianism, not even Bentham’s.</p>

<p>Peter Singer is a radical, and he will always remain so; many scholars are apt to cast his beliefs in the ‘nonsense bin’, but he does make coherent propositions. I know numerous professors who believe in the permissibility of humans marrying non-humans, and they like to introduce themselves as utilitarians. That they advocate these beliefs does not imply they themselves perform them in actuality. They are merely endorsing an ethical framework, and within that framework, they are supposing that some actions are right while others are not.</p>

<p>I could opine an ethical framework which rendered permissible the forced enslavement of an alien race; that my framework allows it does not imply that tomorrow I will enslave aliens.</p>

37

<p>Note that people have done much worse to animals than have sex with them. In fact, you probably ate one today that was raised in terrible conditions on a farm. Also, unless an animal is fighting you, it is probably not that bad, and very possibly consensual, if you have sex with it.</p>

38

<p>King, you are actually going to have to read his stuff before you understand him. People don’t like his conclusions but can’t really refute them. If something is “gross” it doesn’t mean it is wrong by any means.</p>

<p>And everything should be up for discussion.</p>

39

<p>I don’t think you can compare bestiality with homosexuality.</p>

<p>Homosexuality is far more outrageous because it’s more unnatural to life itself. To have sex with the same gender is…a biological contradiction. Biologically, bestiality is much more appropriate than homosexuality. </p>

<p>Life was created with each species being male and female. To have one gender screw the same gender is just totally out of sync with the pattern of life and it’s propagation. No species in the world has sexual intercourse with its own gender. </p>

<p>However, it isn’t a biological folly to have sex with another species. Many animals have had sex with outside species thereby increasing their gene variation. That’s how we have all different kinds of animals. Even though species may breed with other species - most of the time, they are within the same genus and if they’re mating outside the genus, then they will most probably mate within the same family.</p>

<p>Also, think about it. Let’s say your given two choices and you have to pick one. For this example, lets say your a guy:</p>

<p>1) You have to have sex with another guy
2) You can instead choose to have sex with a cow (female obviously), or any other animal of your choice. </p>

<p>What would you pick? Biologically, you will much more inclined to pick the second option.</p>

40

<p>Don’t go there. The first part of your post is treading on thin ice, and could very well start a flame war. I’ll bite my tongue and just say that I think you’re totally out of line in saying that. My opinion.</p>

<p>And you’ll want to do your research about “no species in the world has sexual intercourse with its own gender.” You’d be surprised to find that most do.</p>

<p>Why did you bring this up anyways?</p>