Thursday, June 17, 2010

Peter Singer, New York Times: "Should This Be The Last Generation of Humans?

Peter Singer is a respected Philosopher who teaches at Princeton, and a malevolent human being.

He is probably the most famous modern Philosopher, and one of the primary things he is known for is having written a book called Animal Liberation, which argues that Animals deserve the same rights humans do, because of their ability to suffer.

He argues, here, that this ability to suffer is exactly the reason human beings ought to off themselves. Which leads to the question of whether we ought to off all the animals before we off ourselves.

From the NYT, via Saint Johnny:

Have you ever thought about whether to have a child? If so, what factors entered into your decision? Was it whether having children would be good for you, your partner and others close to the possible child, such as children you may already have, or perhaps your parents? For most people contemplating reproduction, those are the dominant questions. Some may also think about the desirability of adding to the strain that the nearly seven billion people already here are putting on our planet’s environment. But very few ask whether coming into existence is a good thing for the child itself. Most of those who consider that question probably do so because they have some reason to fear that the child’s life would be especially difficult — for example, if they have a family history of a devastating illness, physical or mental, that cannot yet be detected prenatally.

All this suggests that we think it is wrong to bring into the world a child whose prospects for a happy, healthy life are poor, but we don’t usually think the fact that a child is likely to have a happy, healthy life is a reason for bringing the child into existence. This has come to be known among philosophers as “the asymmetry” and it is not easy to justify. But rather than go into the explanations usually proffered — and why they fail — I want to raise a related problem. How good does life have to be, to make it reasonable to bring a child into the world? Is the standard of life experienced by most people in developed nations today good enough to make this decision unproblematic, in the absence of specific knowledge that the child will have a severe genetic disease or other problem?

The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer held that even the best life possible for humans is one in which we strive for ends that, once achieved, bring only fleeting satisfaction. New desires then lead us on to further futile struggle and the cycle repeats itself.
Schopenhauer’s pessimism has had few defenders over the past two centuries, but one has recently emerged, in the South African philosopher David Benatar, author of a fine book with an arresting title: “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.” One of Benatar’s arguments trades on something like the asymmetry noted earlier. To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her.
Few of us would think it right to inflict severe suffering on an innocent child, even if that were the only way in which we could bring many other children into the world. Yet everyone will suffer to some extent, and if our species continues to reproduce, we can be sure that some future children will suffer severely. Hence continued reproduction will harm some children severely, and benefit none.
illustration
Benatar also argues that human lives are, in general, much less good than we think they are. We spend most of our lives with unfulfilled desires, and the occasional satisfactions that are all most of us can achieve are insufficient to outweigh these prolonged negative states. If we think that this is a tolerable state of affairs it is because we are, in Benatar’s view, victims of the illusion of pollyannaism. This illusion may have evolved because it helped our ancestors survive, but it is an illusion nonetheless.
If we could see our lives objectively, we would see that they are not something we should inflict on anyone.
Here is a thought experiment to test our attitudes to this view. Most thoughtful people are extremely concerned about climate change. Some stop eating meat, or flying abroad on vacation, in order to reduce their carbon footprint. But the people who will be most severely harmed by climate change have not yet been conceived. If there were to be no future generations, there would be much less for us to feel to guilty about.
So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!
Of course, it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization, but just imagine that we could. Then is there anything wrong with this scenario? Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend it, because it makes us better off — for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations — and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off.

Is a world with people in it better than one without? Put aside what we do to other species — that’s a different issue. Let’s assume that the choice is between a world like ours and one with no sentient beings in it at all. And assume, too — here we have to get fictitious, as philosophers often do — that if we choose to bring about the world with no sentient beings at all, everyone will agree to do that. No one’s rights will be violated — at least, not the rights of any existing people. Can non-existent people have a right to come into existence?

I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe. In my judgment, for most people, life is worth living. Even if that is not yet the case, I am enough of an optimist to believe that, should humans survive for another century or two, we will learn from our past mistakes and bring about a world in which there is far less suffering than there is now. But justifying that choice forces us to reconsider the deep issues with which I began. Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?

27 comments:

Toaster 802 said...

I asked some people who think like this why not lead by example and off yourselves?

There answer was that they were to important.

The madness of the left is for all to see on this issue. And which they have proved throughout history. You need to die to realize their important selves dreams.

Now can you understand why they want your guns?

Anonymous said...

Singer's cajoling us not to have children obviously comes straight from Satan! Can't you hear the tempter's oily words and seemingly irrefutable logic, leading to a conclusion that means death for every human being on this planet within a generation? That's what Satan wants.

Unfortunately, Singer's disciple, Cass Sunstein, is obama's "regulatory czar". Sunstein supports age-based rationing of health care, and a program of "behavior modification" to force us to eat only the foods that the government prescribes, to exercise according to government dictates, etc. Sunstein's ideas also emanate straight from Satan's mouth, and are being enforced by law and executive order.

RESIST!!!!

Anonymous said...

Well I don't generally agree with Muhammad (pbuh) on most things philosophical, I would have to go along with him on this one.

A single minute spent bashing Peter Singer's brains in, with a wooden or aluminum baseball bat, in the morning or the afternoon, with or without protective goggles, would be even better than a Big Mack Meal. Possibly even a Supersized one.

Anonymous said...

(pbuh) pisscrap be upon him

Anonymous said...

mohammad (pisscrap be upon him)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Well I don't generally agree with Muhammad (pbuh) on most things philosophical, I would have to go along with him on this one.

A single minute spent bashing Peter Singer's brains in, with a wooden or aluminum baseball bat, in the morning or the afternoon, with or without protective goggles, would be even better than a Big Mack Meal. Possibly even a Supersized one.

Thursday, June 17, 2010 8:50:00 PM



philosophical?! lol

mohammad (pork big macs meal upon him)was a schizophrenic pedophile mass-nurderer incendiary torturer thug!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Well I don't generally agree with Muhammad (pbuh) on most things philosophical, I would have to go along with him on this one.

A single minute spent bashing Peter Singer's brains in, with a wooden or aluminum baseball bat, in the morning or the afternoon, with or without protective goggles, would be even better than a Big Mack Meal. Possibly even a Supersized one.

Thursday, June 17, 2010 8:50:00 PM


philosophical?! LOL


mohammad (pork big mac meals be upon him) was schizophrenic incendiary mass-murderer rapist pedophile zoophile necrophile plunderer thug!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Well I don't generally agree with Muhammad (pbuh) on most things philosophical, I would have to go along with him on this one.

A single minute spent bashing Peter Singer's brains in, with a wooden or aluminum baseball bat, in the morning or the afternoon, with or without protective goggles, would be even better than a Big Mack Meal. Possibly even a Supersized one.

Thursday, June 17, 2010 8:50:00 PM


are you the pedophile follower watching this blog?
there's always a pedophile follower watching every anti-jihad site. are you making files like your cronies?

Anonymous said...

UN World Food Program — Money Goes to Islamists

The UN WFP (World Food Program) receives most of its funding from USAID.

The WFP is corrupt to its core, as evidenced by a leaked UN document about Somalia which exposed that most of the aid goes to UN workers, Islamic militants and contractors.(6) Another example is in Ethiopia where only 12% of the food aid was delivered to the intended poverty stricken area. Additionally, there are more examples of corruption with shipping and trucking fees inflated up to 300% over cost. Of course, NGOs are deeply complicit in this international scheme of theft and incompetence with zero accountability.

http://www.infowars.com/food-and-depopulation-international-takeover-by-the-un/

revereridesagain said...

A few months ago I was perplexed to discover that two of the most amoral people I have ever known (hint: anonymous may not be entirely off-base about the satanism) have taken up the cause of "animal rights". They were caught sexually abusing children, but the rights of animals is high on their list of concerns? Why do I have the feeling that there is a hidden agenda at work with these people, much the same as the one that animates Peter Singer.

Pastorius said...

Is there any specific reason to say that Cass Sunstein is Peter Singer's disciple? I mean, I know they have the same sorts of ideas, but did Sunstein study under Singer, or did he ever cite him as an influence?

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry. copulation isn't philosophical issue for 99% of the population. These "philosophers" are idiots. For one thing if we set about terminating mankind at this point it would eliminate the primary function of half the race, the female population. I would like to meet these dudes that don't need to do the "wild" thing. And they absolutely shouldn't be given political power.

mah29001 said...

This is yet another example of the Left promoting self-suicide for the entire human race.

Anonymous said...

it has to do with the genocide of people of european stock.

that guy is a psychopath.

in an interview a guy said in 200 or 300 years the people will talk about the europeans as we talk about the romans or the mayans.

Anonymous said...

specism:

Specism is the act of placing higher moral or ethical value on one species over others. It is done in the laboratory animal field all the time. In fact, it is a requirement to view animal work in this way. Federal law requires that researchers consider the concept of refinement when using laboratory animals: one aspect of refinement is using animals lower on the phylogenetic scale (e.g., using mice instead of rabbits, rabbits instead of cats, cats instead of non-human primates).

Peter Singer argues that specism is an extension of the logic of racism and we are performing experiments on various animals that we would not perform on other animals, or humans for that matter, because they are a different species- that this is the same sort of injustice that discriminates by gender and race.

Anonymous said...

All you need to know about the foolhardy jackass narcissistic peter singer:

http://www.nerve.com/opinions/singer/heavypetting

Anonymous said...

weirdo peter singer:

Zoophilia
In a 2001 review of Midas Dekker’s Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that “sex with animals does not always involve cruelty” and that “mutually satisfying activities” of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals, and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities.[26] The position was countered by fellow philosopher Tom Regan, who writes that the same argument could be used to justify having sex with children. Regan writes that Singer’s position is a consequence of his adapting a utilitarian, or consequentialist, approach to animal rights, rather than a strictly rights-based one, and argues that the rights-based position distances itself from non-consensual sex.[27] The Humane Society of the United States takes the position that all sexual molestation of animals by humans is abusive, whether it involves physical injury or not.[28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

SamenoKami said...

Singer probably owns a 'sheep-stick.'

If the Left would stop breeding and kill themselves (for the children and the good of the planet of course) this could be a pretty nice place to live.

A sheep-stick is a mirror on a stick. You hold it out in front of the sheep to see if it's enjoying everything. :)

Epaminondas said...

"He is probably the most famous modern Philosopher"

Nevah hoid of him

Now, Hugh Akston ...!!

BTW if we did not spend most of our lives with unfulfilled desires, and MET OUR GOALS IN EVERY WAY...
imagine the selfish, self satisfied, nothing getting done place this would be

This MAROON is complaining about the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR in us which yields STRIVING, STUDY, delayed gratification, and selfless actions as enlightened self interest.

He's a fool.

Ignore him

Pastorius said...

WC,
It's good to see you around.

:)

Anonymous said...

Aw, you guys are too serious. Have a laugh:
Singer on dignity
Singer on cruelty
Singer on killing

Unknown said...

"I asked some people who think like this why not lead by example and off yourselves?

There answer was that they were to important."

Good point. I'm an antinatalist, but I think perhaps I lack some of the grandiose sense of self in addition to a great desire to improve the welfare of human beings. Maybe that's why I'm going to kill myself.

midnight rider said...

No, dude, don't. That can totally fuck up the rest of your day.

Jimmy said...

Actually Singer is right, having children is wrong.

Anonymous said...

@Anthony

Murder is defined as the killing of another human being, so actually suicide is NOT murder

Pastorius said...

You are thinking confused thoughts. I have been iin terrible places in my mind too, so I think I would recognize it.

I hope you do not kill yourself.

I think it would be a terrible tragedy.

midnight rider said...

Dude, ease off the caffeine.