Harvard University Lecture on Altruism, By Peter Singer Who Promotes Killing Disabled Babies

This is truly an amazing example of distorted thinking at a major US university. Peter Singer is more famously known for advocating killing disabled babies saying that will enable more happiness in the world. See this link for one news article about him and his obscene beliefs. 

http://www.wnd.com/2006/09/37903/

'BIOETHICIST': OK TO KILL BABIES AFTER THEY'RE BORN
'Animal-rights' promoter asserts actual birth makes no difference
Published: 09/14/2006 at 1:00 AM

It shows how misguided universities are these days encouraging killing vulnerable persons while celebrating accumulating and using money to be thought of as altruistic. Is this more upside down thinking like, Shaw's "The road to hell is paved with good intentions;" or Cleobulous' "The chief source of evil among men is excessive good?"

[From article]
“People think the problem is so big that they can’t make a difference, I think that’s a mistake,” he said.
Introduced as “one of the most influential living philosophers in the most positive way” by Psychology professor Joshua D. Greene,
[. . .]
Harvard College Effective Altruism Co-President Angie Jo ’16 said the organization invited Singer to speak because of his status as prominent role in the movement of effective altruism.
“He has become famous for this notion that normal people can make more rigorous decisions to actually change the amount of good they do in the world,” she said.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/4/13/singer-speaks-effective-altruism/

Philosopher Peter Singer Discusses Effective Altruism
By JESSICA MIN, CONTRIBUTING WRITER
Harvard Crimson

April 13, 2015

Peter Singer's Abhorrent Views, Praised at Harvard University

“'We are animals,' [Moral philosopher and Princeton professor Peter] Singer said, citing Darwin’s theory of evolution. Singer [. . .] asserts that animals’ interests should be given equal weight to those of humans." This moral philosopher joins state and US laws which give (non human) animals more protections than the human kind. See, e.g., US Animal Protection Act of 1966, compared with Title 45 CFR 46. Prof. Singer advocates allowing parents to kill severely disabled human children during the first six months of life, to increase the amount of happiness in the world. His ideas are moral, with the strict meaning of habit. Better than some ideas, worse than others. “'If God were a utilitarian, Singer would be his patron saint,' Law School professor and Petrie-Flom Center co-director Glenn Cohen said in his introduction." Would that make him also a saint, protecting parents from the unhappiness of having disabled children?

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/11/10/peter-singer-advocates-for-animal-rights/#

Peter Singer Advocates for Animal Rights
By JOANNA R. SCHACTER, CONTRIBUTING WRITER
Harvard Crimson
November 10, 2013

Students Chosen For Harvard University Ethics Program

Appointees to MA legislative and US Congressional Ethics Committees are usually legislators with problematic lifestyle practices. The thought is that members with relaxed rectitude are unlikely to hold others accountable for violations of laws and ethics. Then there is Peter Singer Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. He advocates allowing parents of severely disabled babies to kill their children within six months in order to increase happiness in the world. Are these standards applied to selected students too?

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/3/29/safra-fellowship-ethics-students/

14 Undergraduates Chosen for Ethics Fellowship Program
By BRYAN BAEK, CONTRIBUTING WRITER
Harvard Crimson
March 29, 2013

Apples to Oranges, and Peter Singer?


Ann Coulter says, "Also contributing to the higher mortality rate of U.S. newborns: Peter Singer lives here."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33791

A Statistical Analysis of Maritime Unemployment Rates, 1946-1948. Just Kidding, More Liberal Lies About National Healthcare!
by Ann Coulter
September 30, 2009

Arthur Caplan, Bioethicist

Arthur Caplan


University of Pennsylvania Professor Caplan is a man with a lot of academic awards. Does he have sufficient common sense to balance his academic perspective? If his comments on ABC News' Prime Time, August 25, 2009 are any indication, he shows little common sense.
He says that a person may commit a violent act thus he or she should be medicated. He does not state any rational method of determining who may be violent, and how to identify them. If human nature is any indicator all humans are capable of violence given sufficient provocation.

He is a bioethicist. What are the qualifications for that title? Princeton University Professor Peter Singer is also a bioethicist. Singer professes that parents should be allowed to kill a baby born with disabilities within six months of birth. He says it will increase happiness in the world.

Caplan expresses his despicable opinion of persons accused of mental illness without any evidence to support his biases. He does not question how mental illnesses are created. He does not mention any abuses of psychiatry. He sounds like a man with financial interests in the psychiatric industry and the drug industry. ABC did not provide any information about his drug company or psychiatric connections. He has a graduate degree from Columbia University which has an enormous financial commitment to promoting drug treatment.

Caplan was "Named 'Person to Watch in 2001' by USA Today." Why was he singled out to be watched? What are his personal habits that make him a subject for surveillance? Has anyone watched him since then? What was he found to be doing?

http://www.bioethics.upenn.edu/People/?last=Caplan&first=Arthur

Arthur Caplan, Ph.D.
Emanuel and Robert Hart Professor of Bioethics
E-mail: caplan@mail.med.upenn.edu
Tel:(215) 898-7136

Animal Rights vs Human Rights

Animal Rights vs Human Rights

PETA and Peter Singer regard abuses of humans as a lower priority than
abuses of animals. (Star Parker, "PETA: Sicker Than Vick," Miami Herald,
August 24, 2007) This standard is institutionalized in state and US
laws. Animal Protection Act of 1966 has fines and jail time for violations of
animal research laws. There are no penalties for violations of the laws on
humans used for research (Title 45 CFR Section 46). Office of Human Research
Protection refers complaints about unlawful research using humans to the accused
institution for processing.
After 7 humans died in medical experiments at Harvard teaching hospitals in
Boston there were no criminal proceedings, unlike in the Vick case abusing dogs.

Roy Bercaw, Editor, ENOUGH ROOM

Posted on Fri, Aug. 24, 2007
STAR PARKER: Who is sicker, Vick or PETA?
MiamiHerald.com

The Michael Vick dogfighting scandal is morphing into a broader NFL dogfighting
scandal, as other NFL players also appear to be involved in this very weird
pastime.

But as animal-rights groups get more aggressive in their accusations and
demands, the whole scene is getting stranger and stranger. And the closer you
look, the more you see the deep conflicts in core values that fracture our
society.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) wants the NFL to "add cruelty
to animals - in all its forms - to its personal conduct policy." What, for PETA,
is "cruelty to animals - in all its forms"? According to its Web site, we should
not eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment or abuse animals in any way.

So PETA's problem is well beyond the sick and cruel murdering of these creatures
of which Vick and others are allegedly guilty. Dogfighting for entertainment, or
any other use of animals for entertainment, is itself, for PETA, cruelty.

If it's relevant to look for any kind of logic here, why would it be decent
entertainment to watch hulks of men ram the daylights out of each other as they
move a ball across a field, but cruel to watch dogs fight? Why would the NFL
sign on to such a thing?

More specifically, among PETA's prohibitions, is the use of animal skins. The
ball, as in football, is an inflated leather object endearingly called the
"pigskin."

Why does PETA oppose existing NFL conduct policy, and not football itself?

J.C. Watts, Chuck Colson and others have asked why abuse of dogs is outrageous
to so many who see no similar outrage in the 800,000-plus abortions that occur
in the United States each year. At the most intuitive level, there is something
unsettling about an attitude for which abuse of a dog is intolerable, but women
destroying their unborn children with impunity is not a problem.
[...]
PETA provides material on its Web site to explain the rationale of the
"animal-rights" concept that drives its worldview. "When it comes to pain, love,
joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy," says PETA founder
Ingrid Newkirk.

For more extensive exposition, the site refers to the writings of Princeton
philosopher Peter Singer, author of "Animal Liberation."

Now Singer has written on a great deal more than animal rights. He's the author
of "Practical Ethics," in which he offers his justifications for euthanasia,
abortion and infanticide.

According to Singer, parents should be permitted to kill a baby born with a
tragic illness or defect. In "Practical Ethics," he argues that "... the fact
that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo
sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather,
characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness that make a
difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot
be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious
beings."

Thus, through a long and twisted road of logic, beginning with one man's own
premises about existence, we are led to a conclusion that killing animals is an
outrage, but an infant, not.
[...]
* Star Parker is president of CURE, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education
(www.urbancure.org) and author of three books. She can be reached at
parker@urbancure.org.