Fallen and Flawed

This is a good summary of Singer. Representative and fair in my judgment.

Because Singer is so consistent in his beliefs and he’s found a system that actually is a system (meaning it doesn’t contradict itself), it makes me wonder why so many atheists reject him.

I’ve often heard atheists (who are not of the Peter Singer ilk) make appeals to common sense or conscience as reasons why they behave in ways less offensive than Singer’s. But I wonder where they get this notion of common sense or conscience? And what do they do with people who don’t have it? Where does morality come from for the non-Singer atheist?

Especially when relating to a baby where there is no utilitarian gain for being nice (meaning we all treat each other a certain way because it’s mutually beneficial). It wouldn’t necessarily be mutually beneficial to treat a baby well, unless they have protective parents.

From a purely secular perspective, Singer makes some very solid arguments. We can’t expect unbelievers to hold to Christian morals. In fact, I think the church would be better off abandoning all hope of creating a nation with Christian laws and morals and instead, redirect our focus to loving the individuals God brings into our lives. I like you idea behind this series. I think we need to have more respect and understanding for those who think different than us, so that we can show more of God’s love and grace.

As much as I despise saying it…at least Singer is consistent in his thinking. He is the atheist’s atheist; a man completely free of any morality or higher feelings toward his fellow man. In his elevation of animals, he has made himself lower than them. In his mind he has made humanity the least of animals, a low and needlessly glorified worm. Thus he follows in the footsteps of his father…and crawls on his belly, eating the dust alongside him.

–Denita

Abigail: Studying Singer’s helped me see some things I’d been long confused on, for example, how do atheists get away with being moral if there is no God. They don’t. They simply smuggle it’s ideas into their life. R. Dawkins said, I’m a cultural Christian. I’d say Singer isn’t.
—
Julie: That’s exactly what I’m gunnin’ for.
—
Denita: It’s a tad unnerving, isn’t it?

In my experience, there are not that many authentic athiests. Instead many who claim atheism are more often simply mad at God for some personal tragedy, or do not want to acknowledge the existence of God because that would force them to confront their sinful lifestyle. I’ve met, read, or heard very few actual atheists, and most often they’re as you describe Dawkins. They desire the functionality of a post-Christian world with the trappings of Christian morality.

i don’t really know what to say. it just makes me sad.

Atheist like to appear “better, wiser, more moral” than religious folks. They’ll claim we’re all evolved animals with evolved morals. Singer makes them look bad and less moral.

Yes it certainly looks like you’ve found at least one atheist who gets his morality from the Bible…
..
“For the Egyptians buried all their firstborn, which the LORD had smitten among them: upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments.”
- Numbers 33:4
..
Seriously though… I have not read enough to tell if this characterisation of Singer is fair, but I suspect it is how Christians see atheists. Certainly, from what I can see, some of his views are repugnant.
..
Demian, in a sense what you’ve done here is very clever. You remain spotlessly non-judgemental whilst leaving the very broad brush lying around for your readers to tar all atheists! To be fair, you do admit that Singer is extreme. Fred Phelps is also extreme, so is Osama bin Laden, but I’d be a fool to think all believers were like them.
..
What is wrong with atheists taking a few inspirational bits of the Bible and judging for themselves whether it’s morally worthwhile, as well as many other sources secular and religious and debating what makes for a good healthy society. Surely that is better than making a arbitrary choice of worldview and sticking to it rigidly. It seems Singer has put a lot of thought into his ideas, and I’d suggest careful consideration before we leap to any conclusions.
..
Odi, is that because you live in a predominantly Christian part of the world?
..
The following article may give you an interesting alternative and I think consistent view of atheist morality.
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-roots-of-morality-iii.html

Eshu, I appreciate the compliment on being clever. Not my intention, though. Now tell me, how have I left “the very broad brush lying around” for my readers to tar all atheists?

Demian, Sorry for the delay in response. I am concerned that people will read about Singer and reinforce their belief that “all atheists are immoral”. C.S. Lewis did a similar thing in “The Great Divorce” if you’ve read that? He created a wide variety of non-believing caricatures and said compassionate things about them. However, he wrote the caricatures as so extreme and unpleasant that his readers would probably judge them (and therefore all atheists) as terrible people.
…
As other people mentioned I don’t think Singer is especially important to atheists, I’ve certainly not seen him discussed much. It seems to me he’s the theist’s atheist!
…
Anyway, glad to see you’ve interviewed Hemant next.

Eshu: Ah, I see what you mean. Not my intention, and I do agree with you that Singer’s probably a theist’s atheist…especially since D’Souza likes to debate him. I have read Great Divorce and didn’t draw that line, but as you point out anytime you use caricatures there’s the potential to smear everyone. Keep in mind that Singer is not a caricature…he’s authentic…but I do want a sample from across the board. Thus, Hemant, and so on. Want to be next?

Sorry to disagree, but I do not see this article as an accurate description of Singer’s views in the least. Shouldn’t it be possible to quote Singer directly rather than quote those who interpret him? I have read Singer extensively, and even though I am a Christian I do not have any problem with his views. In fact his REAL views are difficult to embrace for believers and non-believers alike. Maybe because they are so true, logical and consistent. And they should be embraced by both.

Ethically, the life of an adult pig or cow is certainly at least as worthy as a human baby’s. Recognising this fact does not constitute advocating the baby being killed.

If only those who try to discuss Singer attempted to understand what he says first!

Hey Jag, thanks for posting. So, what are his REAL views? I think what I shared above is repugnant to both believer and non-believer alike. They’re worse?

Looking forward to hearing from you, sir.

Damien,

Thank you for your message. There are people who just enjoy condemning everything they disagree with – just because! Hope you are not one of them and you are really interested in his views. Are you able to provide any quote from Singer himself you find repugnant (quotes out of context and his view as interpreted by his adversaries don’t count!)?

I would recommend you start with his “Practical Ethics”, as it discusses many different issues, and no doubt you will find some of them at least interesting.

The great thing about Singer’s system is that it provides a platform for people of different philosophical viewpoints. You can be an agnostic, baptist, hindu, atheist, catholic or even an animist and find that you still share the same conclusions. It’s because his views are not grounded in any sectarian way of thinking. There is no dogmatic “God said it, it settles it”, only rational thinking.

No wonder he is one of the most influential ethical thinkers of today. You don’t suggest that he would get his prestigious university chairs if his views were simply “repugnant”? Of course, it’s possible to disagree with him on some points, but has someone actually rationally proven that his views are mistaken or wrong?

Happy reading!

Jag, I do indeed have a quote by Singer I find find repugnant. It’s actually in the original article I posted…

But what does that have to do with anything?

Furthermore, why don’t views interpreted by his adversaries count?

Your comment seems to be suggesting several things. I’m curious to see if I’m right.

One, is it not possible to understand a person or their views without reading them first hand? [Naturally it's not the best way, but sufficient?]

Two, is my interpretation of Singer incorrect? How?

Did I get that right?

By the way, when you say a cow’s life is at least as worthy as a human baby’s, what did you mean by that?

Obviously Singer must be more difficult to understand than he thinks (and than I thought too!).

I guess the “repugnant” quote is this:

“Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.”

If so, then observe what he says: that morally there is no huge difference between a fetus and a newborn. That life is not black-or white, and we do not become humans in an instant. What he does not say is that the life of a fetus is NOT worthy of protection, just that it doesn’t have the same value.

If you wanted to study the real teaching of Jesus, would you get it from his adversaries? Didn’t think so… Same with Singer. By all means, read what they say, but do not assume that they represent them correctly. They interpret him!

Of course you can try to understand a person second-hand, but it’s much more difficult than by getting first-hand information. Thank you for asking my opinion directly and not through my enemies!

My impression from reading your text was that Singer calls for certain groups of people to be killed. Totally wrong! Either you got Singer wrong, or I got you wrong…

When I was a kid I could never understand why when our dog was sick it was put to sleep, and our elderly relatives were not. I still think we are morally very confused to allow that.