[xsVfF9Em]

No one is morally superior or morally inferior on the basis of his/her sexual orientation.

[budumol]

No one is morally superior or morally inferior on the basis of his/her sexual orientation.

[Olphander]

What the ****? Peter Singer has officially gone insane. This is the most retarded thing I've read of his and he's written plenty of retarded stuff in the past.

The only redeeming thing is that in the last paragraph he's kind of like 'Just kidding. But it would be interesting, nonetheless, don't you agree?' Almost seems like a cop out. What was the point of the last several paragraphs and all your ruminating if you were just going to say "life is worth living", Singer?

[BigMovies]

Horrible argument. First argues that a) pleasure is a product of "pollyannaism" and that b) not having kids would let us feel less guilty about our responsibilities to future generations so we could have more fun - but wouldn't any such fun be the very same "pollyannaism" that the article has already mentioned?

[dianakroshXX]

"get contacts, get a haircut, get better clothes, and lose some weight"
Albert Speer Mono, how long ago was it that I said that?

[LindaSmithIV]

Only now? Dude, Singer believes it's ok to kill kids up to the age of 3.

I'm sure he made a good argument

[Kissntell]

Agreed. It's the heteros that make the conscious choice not to breed that are morally superior.

Okay, I suppose I can go with that.

[TpDoctorOneTp]

Only now? Dude, Singer believes it's ok to kill kids up to the age of 3.

If it were most any other famous person, I'd accuse you of making this up or severely exaggerating. But the thing about Peter Singer is, I'm ready to believe he actually said that **** verbatim. This is, after all, the fellow who once claimed there is no difference in moral worth between an animal and a human being.

Oncle Boris, Nostromo, this is a wonderful example of why I don't respect your discipline. You not only don't, but are basically incapable of, laughing retarded nonsense like this out of your journals. To be fair, Lit Crit is equally inundated with rubbish, but I disown Lit Crit. You can still like William Shakespeare or Jane Austen or James Joyce or whoever without "analyzing" them as an excuse to trot out your pet moron theory that can't get traction in the mainstream. Modern philosophy, on the other hand, has nothing else but people talking like Peter Singer.

[Loonakind]

PETER SINGER values are completely different from my own.

JM

[Rinkeliacasse]

Rawls was not too bad. And Daniel Dennet is cool.

Rawls struck me as more of a political scientist. Don't know about Dennett, but his Wiki entry makes him sound like a member of the pushy-atheist douchebag brigade, so I don't think I'd have any use for him. And the quotes given are too jargon-laden for my tastes. Consider, from the Wiki:

The model of decision making I am proposing has the following feature: when we are faced with an important decision, a consideration-generator whose output is to some degree undetermined produces a series of considerations, some of which may of course be immediately rejected as irrelevant by the agent (consciously or unconsciously). Those considerations that are selected by the agent as having a more than negligible bearing on the decision then figure in a reasoning process, and if the agent is in the main reasonable, those considerations ultimately serve as predictors and explicators of the agent's final decision. Try, "Some part of us has free will. It comes up with a bunch of ideas, but we throw a few out because they don't matter, they're just the random **** that floats through our heads. We use what's left to make a decision. Assuming we're not crazy, anybody else can predict what we'll decide by looking at the problem the way we do." Did I leave out anything crucial?

[iqxdvjgmat]

This is, after all, the fellow who once claimed there is no difference in moral worth between an animal and a human being.

Without having read any of his stuff, I don't have a problem with that statement.

I'll still eat meat, etc, but on the understanding that I am killing another creature in order to do so, and that that creature has the same inherent rights that I have.

[nithhysfusy]

If you believe that the animal is equivalent in moral worth to a human being, you ought to consider yourself, in effect, a cannibal for eating one.

I do, and I don't have a problem with it. A crocodile would eat me if it had the chance. That being said, I do eat other animals in preference to humans because I value humans more, because I am a human. I recognise this to be a subjective value, and not of objective merit. It is, however the way of things. It ultimately benefits me to eat other animals as opposed to humans.

And in a hypothetical situation where you could save ten squirrels' lives or one human's, you ought to help the squirrels without hesitation. Which is why I consider that statement of Singer's moronic.

See above. But I repeat, it is a subjective value that causes me to act in such a way, not an objective one.

[Zzvukttz]

Does a croc have a code of morality to guide it? Jesuse ****ing christ.

Does this make the croc inherently less valuable?

[SkapySisy]

Does this make the croc inherently less valuable?

It makes your whole "Well a croc would eat me if it had the chance, therefore I will eat any animal if I have the chance" be retarded if you hold that we are equal for morality purposes.

[CibQueersejer]

Does a croc have a code of morality to guide it? Jesuse ****ing christ.

Maybe he's saying that crocs DO have a code of morality but the language barrier between crocs and humans prevents us from learning what their code of morality is.

[ChuttyAmult]

No, the argument is that animals don't have any less moral worth than humans, not that they don't have any less morals.

Your entire argument is based on your ability to have a set of morals and ethics which the croc doesn't have. It's retarded.

[taesrom]

(And no matter how many times you say retarded, it doesn't improve your argument.)