That's similar to J.B.S Haldane's views. Haldane was a Darwin Medalist, a member of the Eugenics Society, a 'useful idiot' for Stalin, shill for Lysenko, and the co-founder of the Modern Synthesis. He believed that 'useless eaters' should simply kill themselves.

Click here for more information on the world-view of Darwinians.

“In my opening statement I showed the profound connection between Singer’s Darwinian atheism and his advocacy of infanticide and euthanasia. Remarkably Singer responded by saying he didn’t come to debate his bioethical views!”

Of course he didn’t, but he shouldn’t have been allowed to seperate them like that.......because ultimately they are linked.

the heavens resound with belly-laughter.

Singer is an honest Athiest, he lives his belief and admits....no God....no morality. He and Nietsche are much alike.

He's never been around an infant nursing, or one with colic then.

I actually think it's a case of arrested development, where he just wants attention himself.

Cheers!

What is it with Creationists. This is a concept produced by Jews.

Oh? You mean they LIKE these things?

I have never seen any evidence that Darwin advocated infanticide and euthanasia. Comments in his work strongly suggest his revulsion at abortion.

Yes. We can learn that they are wrong.

I am anti-abortion, but I also doubt the existence of a God. Darwinism has no influence on agnosticism.

Where does that put me?

In that particular quote he was referencing a 3-month fetus, not a 3-month baby, and so was perhaps not completely inaccurate. Irrelevant observation, but not inaccurate.

The Romans had a Phrase Called “PATER FAMILIA” where the head of the Family decided if the Newborn was worthy of joining his clan... Today we have MATER FAMILIA only the Mother can choose..

Yes, we certainly have much to learn from such an advanced culture. Darwinian atheism is devolution.

Interestingly, this is a blast from the past.

Sparta was the only ancient state where the decision to raise or not raise a child was up to the State. Elsewhere it was handled exactly as Singer proposes, with the decision being made by the parents, or more precisely the adult male head of household. (Somehow the term "father" seems inappropriate.)

I was recently reading an article which wondered why the Roman Empire had no massive population explosion during the pax Romana. Universal peace, thriving economy, etc. Should have been an LOT of children born. The authors descended into an idiotic discussion of ancient contraception methods, without apparently being aware that in ancient times the birth rate was by no means always parallel to the population growth (or decline).

Christianity changed that, making infanticide for the first time in history a crime. Before then, the Jews were about the only people who raised all their children. Tourists regularly commented on it, as being such odd bizarre behavior.

I note that there are two distinct forms of atheist.

The noisy kind are attracted to every non-religious “-ism” in the book. Moral relativism, Darwinism (which is almost an oxymoron), socialism, communism, anarchism, etc. They are atheists *reliant* on religion the same way that Satanists are. Without religion they have no context.

The other kind of atheist, that generally never make an issue of the fact, are indifferent to religion. (Though if you mentioned this difference, the first group of atheists get extremely agitated, and insist that they are also indifferent to religion. They will scream at you about how indifferent they are.)

A healthy majority of the second group of atheists have no real ax to grind about God or gods, whoever. They are more inclined to reject religion instead, as being so hopelessly fouled up that its good ideas are buried under a pile of detritus. Often they are borderline agnostics, and are just as responsive to what they think of as truly spiritual as are the religious.

In some ways, the latter group of atheists are more religiously responsible than are people who call themselves religious yet regularly and grossly violate the tenets of their religion, such as very pro-abortion Catholics. At least they could be religious, and properly so, if they were persuaded by it.

Finally, many of this second group of atheists actually have a moral code. While it does not derive directly from religion, it runs parallel to it, so achieves many of the same ends.

Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness...make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings."

Following this logic leads us to rationalizing cleansing society of those with mental or psychological defects. Specifically ones that cannot think cognitively (rationality), take care of themselves (autonomy) or various mental disorders (self-consciousness). He later broadens the argument by stating that killing infants is like killing abnormal humans; in both cases, he intimates, is less egregious.

I wonder what the IQ level is below which he would consider killing to not be murder.

Well, no, not actually if you know the origins of their mentors. Sanger comes to mind.

The characteristic which, fundamentally, really counts, that is, simply being human, does not figure at all in his thinking.

He believed that ‘useless eaters’ should simply kill themselves.”

Why didn’t he?

Some of Singer’s critics call him a Nazi”

I would never call him a Nazi. I’d call him Satan, but not a Nazi.

It puts you in the same position as an Athiest who is opposed to abortion and genocide and all other manner of behaviour considered evil by the Judeo-Christian moral code. You have adopted a moral system but not the basis for the moral system. If there is no God then morality is simply whatever we deem it to be according to our whims, our likes and dislikes. If there is no God we, and everything else, are simply dust in the wind.

Even beyond that, our thoughts are meaningless too, including the thoughts expressed in this exchange. That is because, from a materialists worldview, our thoughts are, as C.S. Lewis says, “simply the epiphenomenon which accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself the by-product of a blind evolutionary process.” Dust can't reason, dust can't truly love...or hate, it can only respond to blind stimulus.

I recognize that you are an agnostic and therefore not sure about God's existence, I am just giving you the scenario if your doubts are valid. In my view agnostics want to cover all the bases, doubt of God, but retainment of the moral code based on God. I am glad they do that, as I am glad for those Athiests that retain the Judeo-Christian moral code, but unfortunately their house is built on sand.

Pro-abortion Catholics are not Catholics, period. And those who embrace this satanic mad man’s beliefs are not possessed of a soul, period. Horrific insights into pure evil such as this compel me to read “The Apocalypse” once again. Just like “Ulysses”, with each reading it becomes more clear to me.

Singer is an abominable man but he is very honest and consistent with his beliefs. IF I were an atheist, I would see no problem with infanticide or doing whatever the heck I pleased. Why should I worry one iota about another person when we’re all evolutionary accidents?

However, Singer’s beliefs, and his willingness to admit their full ramifications, really destroys his own argument that there is no God. I think that the mere existence of morality and that mankind is so concerned with “others” (people, animals, environment) is telling. To me, the strongest evidence in favor of God’s existence is the recognition that evil exists. Atheists like to talk about the “problem of evil” but they really have a problem, the “problem of good” to deal with.

Well said.

Darwin Medalist Julian Huxley comes to mind too. And any one of dozens of other Darwinians.

thanks to Darwin, [Man] now knows that he is not an isolated phenomenon... Animals, plants, and micro-organisms, they are all his cousins or remoter kin, all parts of one single branching and evolving flow of metabolizing protoplasm.
- Julian Huxley, The Humanist Frame, 1961

For a justification of our moral code we no longer have to have recourse to theological revelation, or to a metaphysical Absolute; Freud in combination with Darwin suffice to give us our philosophic vision.
- Julian Huxley, Philosophy in a World at War

...in the Socialized State the relation between religion and science will gradually cease to be one of conflict and will become one of co-operation. Science will be called on to advise what expressions of the religious impulse are intellectually permissible and socially desirable...
- Julian Huxley, Religion as an Objective Problem, 1941.

So, as the processes of population-growth and their effects are better understood and realized, we shall cease to regard them as mysteries beyond our interference, but see in them yet another field which the labours of knowledge have made ripe for the harvest of rational control. A simple method for exerting some control over population-growth... would be to link it on to public relief. A married man, whether through his own fault or that of economic forces beyond his control, is being supported wholly or mainly out of public funds. The State may fairly be asked to see that neither he nor his family shall starve; but it may fairly ask in return that he shall not increase the load to be carried, by increasing the size of his family. Continuance of relief could quite easily be made conditional upon his having no more children. Infringement of this order could probably be met by a short period of segregation, say in a labour camp.
- Julian Huxley, Man and his Heredity, 1931

If there is no God, then everything is permitted.

In principle, Singer is open to killing anyone as long as that single death will reduce overall suffering, but he focuses on fetuses, newborn babies, and elderly people suffering from dementia, since, as mentioned above, they lack certain abilities that healthy adults have.

Something interesting happens, however, when the individual in question is a family member. Peter Singer broke all of his own rules when his mother became ill with Alzheimer's disease. Michael Specter reported on this in a profile of Singer titled, The Dangerous Philosopher (The New Yorker, September 6, 1999). Singer's mother had reached a point in her life where she no longer recognized Singer, his sister, or her grandchildren, and she had lost the ability to reason. In this state, according to Singer's theory, she did not meet the definition of a person. According to his ethical theory, she ought to have been killed or left to die. Certainly no money should have been spent on her care, since the money could be better spent lowering the suffering of the greatest number of other people. Instead, Singer and his sister hired a team of home health-care aides to look after their mother, spending tens of thousands of dollars in the process.

What's fascinating is that it is precisely when Singer gets into the position of reuniting suffering with a specific individual person, one whom he loves, that he reverses in his actions what he insists upon in his books.

Many people have asked Singer about this contradiction between his behavior and his theory, and in many of those instances he has responded in ways consistent with his theory. Yet, when Michael Specter pressed him on the point, Singer said, "I think this has made me see how the issues of someone with these kinds of problems are really very difficult... Perhaps it is more difficult than I thought before, because it is different when it's your mother." (The New Yorker, 55)

link to the article is here

http://oldarchive.godspy.com/issues/WHATS-LOVE-GOT-TO-DO-WITH-IT-The-Ethical-Contradictions-of-Peter-Singer-by-Dr-Peter-J-Colosi.cfm.html

I had heard that about Singer....or read it here on FR but forgot about it, thanks for the link. Its pretty hard to keep the tough realist attitude when its your own family.

It's probably more correct to call the Nazis "Singerians".

From an evolutionary standpoint, we don't live purely for ourselves alone. We also live for our offspring. Our behaviour, collective and personal, towards others is influenced by our innate understanding that it will significantly influence the way others behave towards our progeny. This is at the crux of why we are, by nature, 'good' towards others, even if we don't or can't have any offspring. Maintaining this attribute of our social existence has boosted our chances of survival, and with that, gotten engrained in our social evolution. Nobody has a monopoly on 'goodness'.

Dust can't reason, dust can't truly love... or hate, it can only respond to blind stimulus.

That is a rather poor understanding of evolution, if at all.

In my view Agnostics want to cover all the bases, doubt of God, but retainment of the moral code based on God.

Like I mentioned earlier, moral codes are not a monopoly of anyone. The rejection of God, by most Atheists, does not come easy- it is the inability to sacrifice rationality, and that is a heavy, but unavoidable, burden to bear.

In other words, "good" is a genetic characteristic, according to you. Do you have evidence of that?

No, I didn't say that (I hope that was not what was conveyed, at least). But since you ask, is being good, a cultural monopoly, in terms of behaviour?

See:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1529272/posts.

You are referring to the herd instinct and yes of course humans have that and so do many animals. However, as opposed to animals, we as humans have the ability to choose to obey this instinct or not. Obeying it might be good for the community, but what if I don't care about the community and have my own selfish agenda to pursue....like Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin, knowing that I will never have to answer for it in an afterlife because such a thing does not exist?

From a Christian point of view, Hitler's agenda was immoral in the absolute, from an Athiest standpoint it was simply an unsuccesful variation of behaviour and therefore not good or bad just...well...unsuccesful. You are assigning a moral value to the continued evolution of human beings when in fact it doesn't matter one whit if man lives or dies except that you happen to want man to go on. There are many envirowhackos that do not and would be happy if man went extinct.

I am not saying that Athiests can't be nice people, just that they have no foundation for their morality except, as you have noted, a foundation based on successful evolution. Under this concept, a successful evolution based on brutality and cruelty, such as occurs with animals and insects, would then be the "good" morality, and such a moral system was advocated by Nietzche. He couched it in terms such as "noble man" and "slave man", but all in all it amounted to POWER being good no matter what. Nietzche saw Christian values such as compassion, forgiveness, and kindness as weakness and therefore evil.

Tell me where the ‘herd’ instinct, or ‘Christian values’ apply in this case:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1529272/posts

Actually, you did. Whenever someone says such-and-such confers a 'survival advantage' and thus arises in our evolutionary history because of selection, he is saying it is genetic. In fact, any time anyone proposes an evolutionary rationalization for anything at all, he is saying it is genetic, whether it be prostitution, altruism, pauperism, atheism, belief in God, goodness, vagrancy, chronic unemployment, Presbyterianism, heroism, cowardice, or anything else. I'm sure you can see that.

To not want to walk into fire is a learned trait, not genetic. Does that trait confer a survival advantage?

It sure does. But if you say that this trait "evolved", then you're saying it's genetic. As you know, natural selection does not work on acquired traits.

I do not recall having said that. However, there is such a thing as social evolution, and that is not genetic. Human society today is not the same that it was, say, 500 years ago.

As you know, natural selection does not work on acquired traits.

Wrong.

If this were the case, why is it so difficult, if not impossible, to raise a tiger cub in captivity, and then integrate it back into the wild?

'Social change' will do just fine then.

[ECO] As you know, natural selection does not work on acquired traits.

Wrong.

LOL, and in post 31 you actually played the 'evolution expert' card. Hilarious.

What are you trying to imply?

[ECO] As you know, natural selection does not work on acquired traits.

Wrong.

LOL, and in post 31 you actually played the 'evolution expert' card. Hilarious.
 

I do not understand what you find hilarious. Are you still under the belief that natural selection is purely genetic, and nurture has nothing to do with it? For ease of understanding, take a pair of tiger cub twins, one of them raised by its parents, and the other, in captivity. The tiger cub raised in captivity, without the skills to hunt, is going to die if introduced back into the wild, no matter what its genetic status. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Are you trying to avoid answering my earlier post?

ev·o·lu·tion  (v-lshn, v-) n.

a process of change in a certain direction.
 

Produced by the Jews, yes... But equally, introduced into Europe by the Christians...

the infowarrior

Singer is an arrogant monster, but he is not consistent.

He spared his sick mother the consequences he advocates for the rest of us, and I doubt he would be so willing to hasten his day of judgement by taking his own medicine WHEN his turn comes and he is ill or temporarily non-sentient.

Atheists want to affirm the butt end of the rope, but deny the noose to which it’s attached. Deep denial is their lifeboat.

That is a good question, just as it is a good question whether or not the herd instinct applied when Kitty Genovese was murdered in front of several people, or when officals in Myanmar deny their suffering people aid from foriegn countries, or Stalin purged millions of people.

From a Christian viewpoint, Mr. Singh simply acted on what Christian's believe is written in the hearts of all men but often ignored because man has Free Will to obey or disobey God. From a Christian point of view Singh's act of courage and self sacrifice was rooted in absolute goodness. From an Athiest standpoint, it was simply one act among many he could have taken, none of which are inherently good or bad except in the eye of the beholder.

The nerve endings that feel pain are innate. Aversion to pain is innate. All that remains to be learned is that fire hurts.

Nature and nurture don't operate separately and independently of each other; many diseases, for example, are caused by environmental factors coupled with a genetic susceptibility .

"Social evolution" is a phenomenon that exists, and it can be talked about loosely in Darwinian terms, but it is not evolutionary biology. The genetic components are an innate desire to share the company of other people, and the ability to learn from other individuals.

Human societies "evolve" in more profound and complex ways than animal societies because humans have developed the abilities to store and transmit language -- to learn lessons from people who died long ago or live far away. Animals in the wild learn behavior only from their own experience or from individuals with whom they have direct contact.

What if you care deeply about your community, and have your own prescription for the betterment of society ... like Osama bin Laden, knowing that you will be rewarded for it in the afterlife?

No arguments here. Whatever the case, the ability to learn is powerfully tied to biological success, across a wide spectrum of complex life-forms.

Human societies "evolve" in more profound and complex ways than animal societies because humans have developed the abilities to store and transmit language -- to learn lessons from people who died long ago or live far away. So too, with animals. In the example I cited, it is nearly impossible to relocate a tiger cub raised in captivity. Since the line of generations in wild tigers have always been unbroken from the parent population of each generation, isn't it an example of the transmission of "social skills" from parent to offspring, just as it is, in humans?

Animals in the wild learn behavior only from their own experience or from individuals with whom they have direct contact.

Yes, that's true. Before the invention of writing and complex communication, that would be the case with humans too. See this:

Stone Age cultures survive tsunami waves
Indian islanders apparently heeded ancient lore

PORT BLAIR, India - Two days after a tsunami thrashed the island where his ancestors have lived for tens of thousands of years, a lone tribesman stood naked on the beach and looked up at a hovering coast guard helicopter.

He then took out his bow and shot an arrow toward the rescue chopper.

It was a signal the Sentinelese have sent out to the world for millennia: They want to be left alone. Isolated from the rest of the world, the tribesmen needed to learn nature's sights, sounds and smells to survive.

Government officials and anthropologists believe that ancient knowledge of the movement of wind, sea and birds may have saved the five indigenous tribes on the Indian archipelago of Andaman and Nicobar islands from the tsunami that hit the Asian coastline Dec. 26.

A Sentinelese man aims his bow and arrow at an Indian Coast Guard helicopter as it flies over his island on Dec. 28, surveying for tsunami damage. Circumstantial evidence suggests the indigenous tribes of the southern archipelago of Andaman and Nicobar used ancient know-how to save themselves from the catastrophic tsunami.

Anthropological Survey of India / AP Three boys from the Jawara tribe in India's Andaman and Nicobar archipelago pose in a photo released by the Anthropological Survey of India.

"They can smell the wind. They can gauge the depth of the sea with the sound of their oars. They have a sixth sense which we don't possess," said Ashish Roy, a local environmentalist and lawyer who has called on the courts to protect the tribes by preventing their contact with the outside world.

Frozen in the Paleolithic past
The tribes live the most ancient, nomadic lifestyle known to man, frozen in their Paleolithic past. Many produce fire by rubbing stones, fish and hunt with bow and arrow and live in leaf and straw community huts. And they don't take kindly to intrusions.

Anil Thapliyal, a commander in the Indian coast guard, said he spotted the lone tribesman on the island of Sentinel, a 23-square-mile (60-square-kilometer) key, on Dec. 28.

"There was a naked Sentinelese man," Thapliyal told The Associated Press. "He came out and shot an arrow at the helicopter."

According to varying estimates, there are only about 400 to 1,000 members alive today from the Great Andamanese, Onges, Jarawas, Sentinelese and Shompens. Some anthropological DNA studies indicate the generations may have spanned back 70,000 years. They originated in Africa and migrated to India through Indonesia, anthropologists say.

It appears that many tribesman fled the shores well before the waves hit the coast, where they would typically be fishing at this time of year.

After the tsunami, local officials spotted 41 Great Andamanese — out of 43 in a 2001 Indian census — who had fled the submerged portion of their Strait Island. They also reported seeing 73 Onges — out of 98 in the census — who fled to highland forests in Dugong Creek on the Little Andaman island, or Hut Bay, a government anthropologist said.

However, the fate of the three other tribes won't be known until officials complete a survey of the remote islands this week, he said. The government reconnaissance mission will also assess how the ecosystem — most crucially, the water sources — has been damaged.

'Islands of the cannibals'
Taking surveys of these areas is dangerous work.

The more than 500 islands across a 3,200-square-mile (8,288-square-kilometer) chain in the southern reaches of the Bay of Bengal appear at first glance to be a tropical paradise. But even one of the earliest visitors, Marco Polo, called the atolls "the land of the head hunters." Roman geographer Claudius Ptolemaeus called the Andamans the "islands of the cannibals."

The Sentinelese are fiercely protective of their coral reef-ringed terrain. They used to shoot arrows at government officials when they came ashore and offered gifts of coconuts, fruit and machetes on the beach.

The Jarawas had armed clashes with authorities until the 1990s, killing several police officers.

Samir Acharya, head of the independent Society for Andaman and Nicobar Ecology, said the Jarawas were peaceful until the British, and later the Indians, began encroaching on their territory. Thousands of bow-wielding Jarawas were killed by British bullets in 1859.

Improving relations
Over the past few years, however, relations have improved and some friendly contacts have been made. The government has banned interaction with the tribes, and even taking their pictures is an offense. Many tribe members have visited Port Blair, capital of the Indian-administered territory, and a few Great Andamanese and Onges work in government offices.

Outsiders are forbidden from interacting with the tribesmen because such contact has led in the past to alcoholism and disease among the islanders, and sexual abuse of local women.

"They have often been sexually exploited by influential people — they give the tribal women ... sugar, a gift wrapped in a colored cloth that makes them happy, and that's it," said Roy.

One of the most celebrated stories of a tribal man straddling both worlds is that of En-Mai, a Jarawa teenager brought to Port Blair in 1996 after he broke his leg. Six months later, he looked like any urban kid, in a T-shirt, denim jeans and a reversed baseball cap. But he is back on his island now, having shunned Western ways.

"He took to the ways ... out of a certain novelty," said Acharya. "It's like eating Chinese food on a weekend."

© 2006 MSNBC.com