Has anyone read this book?
I really enjoyed it.
>>8156593
>by a women and a liberal
into the trash it goes
>>8156602
>Peter "euthanise disabled infants" Singer
> a liberal
Do we have anyone who actually read the book.
No one?
>contemporary ethics
>>8156875
What does a slightly amused looking women leaning over a toilet have to do with contemporary ethics?
Also, I'm guessing you're another one who has not read the book?
>>8156593
>Singer
>literally btfo by Zizek of all people
>Singer—usually designated as a "social Darwinist with a collectivist socialist face"—starts innocently enough, trying to argue that people will be happier if they lead lives committed to ethics: a life spent trying to help others and reduce suffering is really the most moral and fulfilling one. He radicalizes and actualizes Jeremy Bentham, the father of utilitarianism: the ultimate ethical criterion is not the dignity (rationality, soul) of man, but the ability to SUFFER, to experience pain, which man shares with animals. With inexorable radicality, Singer levels the animal/human divide: better kill an old suffering woman than healthy animals... Look an orangutan straight in the eye and what do you see? A none-too-distant cousin—a creature worthy of all the legal rights and privileges that humans enjoy. One should thus extend aspects of equality—the right to life, the protection of individual liberties, the prohibition of torture—at least to the nonhuman great apes (chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas).
>Singer argues that "speciesism" (privileging the human species) is no different from racism: our perception of a difference between humans and (other) animals is no less illogical and unethical than our one-time perception of an ethical difference between, say, men and women, or blacks and whites. Intelligence is no basis for determining ethical stature: the lives of humans are not worth more than the lives of animals simply because they display more intelligence (if intelligence were a standard of judgment, Singer points out, we could perform medical experiments on the mentally retarded with moral impunity). Ultimately, all things being equal, an animal has as much interest in living as a human. Therefore, all things being equal, medical experimentation on animals is immoral: those who advocate such experiments claim that sacrificing the lives of 20 animals will save millions of human lives—however, what about sacrificing 20 humans to save millions of animals? As Singer's critics like to point out, the horrifying extension of this principle is that the interests of 20 people outweighs the interests of one, which gives the green light to all sorts of human rights abuses.
>ethics
Sorry, too spooky for me.
>>8157277
shut the fuck up you dumb idiot
>XDDD le spookiezz !!!
>>8157270
I really don't see anything wrong with what was said.
As a consequentialist, I don't believe in moral rights, and am more than willing to admit that medical experiments on humans (especially very mentally disabled ones) might well be justified under some circumstances.
