A waiter in Houston, Michael Garcia, has come to know many of his customers as though they are family. Thus, when he saw some unfamiliar customers making rude comments about 5-year-old Milo Castillo, a child born with Down's syndrome, Michael felt the need to speak up. Apparently, one of the customers said, "special needs children need to be special somewhere else." And Michael responded by saying, "I'm not going to be able to serve you, sir."According to reports, "The customer and his family left, but Milo's family had no idea of the incident until another server told them. Word of Garcia's "heroic" response got out after that, and before long his Facebook page was inundated with affirming comments—the media soon followed. The general sentiment is, "He stood up for Milo just because it was the right thing to do." This story highlights the fact that there is still a desire to affirm the value of human life, despite limitations. And, despite what secular professors teach about ethics today, our conscience is often the best guide with regard to respecting and valuing other people as human beings. Also, it's not enough to know what is right ethically, actions are also important.
Unfortunately, there is currently a trend towards dehumanization with regard to the teaching of ethics in universities in the US. For example, the "Distinguished Professor" Peter Singer at Princeton University offers at least three criteria by which he decides whether or not a human should be considered a person. One criterion focuses on the question of whether there is any interest in the person's life. A second criterion regards any evidence of a strong desire to live. And a third issue focuses on whether or not a being is able to project desires into the distant future. If a human being does not meet these minimal criteria, then it does not necessarily qualify as a person, at least as far as Peter Singer is concerned. Though highly lauded by secular academicians, the logic behind Singer's basic arguments on ethics is flawed.
The outpouring of public support for Michael Garcia and Milo Castillo suggests that many in the US public still by and large hold to the view than human life has great value, no matter what kind of limitations are experienced. Peter Singer promotes both infanticide and bestiality, and the views he holds are seen as quite cold and dehumanizing by people who believe that there is value in human life beyond mere utilitarian considerations. There is no reason to doubt that teaching dehumanizing views on the worth of human life will have the effect of creating a colder less-loving world. Sadly, we do see society becoming colder presently in this respect, as the Bible predicted would be the case:
"Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold."[Mat. 24.12 NIV]
This news story was first noted at BCN and the original report is linked here. Read original news post here.
Tags: ethics and human value, the conscience and ethics, dehumanization of society, Christian versus secular ethics. cold world ethics, Michael Garcia hero, Peter Singer dehumanizing ethics
Recommended:
R:A recent incident has helped to display just how out of touch with society secular humanist ethicist are today in the US
ReplyDeletea) You have no idea what ethics secular humanist have and you have no interest in non-christian ethics
b) You have no evidence that the bullies were secular humanists or even atheists in the first place. Given the high level of religiosity of Texas, it is likely they were christians.
R:While Distinguished Professor Peter Singer at Princeton University offers that children who have difficulty with understanding time and "desires for the future"are not necessarily persons worthy of life
Liar. Nowhere does Stinger says such a thing.
As always, you distort the facts and push your propaganda, Rick. Your dishonesty knows no limits.
>You have no idea what ethics secular humanist have and you have no interest in non-christian ethics
Delete- Actually, this is the third article in which I've described Peter Singer, a notable secular humanist ethicist.
>You have no evidence that the bullies were secular humanists or even atheists in the first place. Given the high level of religiosity of Texas, it is likely they were christians.
- My point is to outline how secular views on human life tend to dehumanize people, that's all. Do you disagree with this?
>Liar. Nowhere does Stinger says such a thing.
- You deny that having desires for the future is one of the criteria Singer uses to evaluate personhood?
>As always, you distort the facts and push your propaganda,
- Not quite.
R:Actually, this is the third article in which I've described Peter Singer, a notable secular humanist ethicist
DeleteYes and those articles are mostly straw men as it was pointed out to you. For example, you lie by stating that Singer promotes infanticide and bestiality, When it was pointed out to you, you just ignored the truth and kept your propaganda.
You also try to equate the views of Singer to the views of all humanists, which is dishonest.
Furthermore, his views are not that popular and there are other different humanist moral systems that you decided to ignore.
Finally, you are a hypocrite for denouncing the antisemitism of Luther and trying to accuse all secularists for the views of a single humanist at the same time.
R:My point is to outline how secular views on human life tend to dehumanize people, that's all. Do you disagree with this?
Yes I do disagree and even Singer does not state such a thing.
R:You deny that having desires for the future is one of the criteria Singer uses to evaluate personhood?
a) You focus on a single criteria as always and ignore all the rest of them.
b) You have no evidence it was the influence of your straw man version of secular humanism that pushed that customer to insult the boy and not the nazi/christian concept of the purity of blood for example.
c) Not qualifying for complete personhood by Singer s standard does not mean one have the right to bully a person or animal.
Yes and those articles are mostly straw men as it was pointed out to you.
Delete- Oh, is that right? Look at the article: "Peter Singer's Flawed Logic." As of January 23, you have not offered one single point regarding the logical argument pointing out Singer's flawed logic. On January 23 I pointed out why Imnotandrei has offered an invalid criticism and my comment has not been addressed by anyone.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/01/peter-singers-flawed-logic.html#comment-form
Why don't you try and demonstrate why you believe the argument is a straw man argument instead of pretending that you already have? Does that make very much sense?
>You also try to equate the views of Singer to the views of all humanists, which is dishonest.
I am pointing out the fact that Singer is a highly regarded voice among secular academia. That is what "distinguished professor" signifies. Did you not know that?
>and there are other different humanist moral systems that you decided to ignore.
Actually, I've also pointed out Sam Harris' flawed arguments. And I offered a link in that same Singer article. You must have missed it when you were reading the article:
"One expert on secular morality, Sam Harris argues there is such an objective basis, while another expert on secular morality, Peter Singer argues that there is no such basis. According to the rules of logic, only one of them can be correct."
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/01/peter-singers-flawed-logic.html
I find it amusing that they are both cited as secular experts on ethics when they outright contradict each other on a fundamental level.
It seems like the Russian vodka is killing a lot of your brain cells and your memory is going. I've also written articles about Sam Harris' secular ethics, and not very long ago:
Why Science Still Cannot Answer Moral Questions
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-science-cannot-answer-moral.html
>Yes I do disagree and even Singer does not state such a thing.
- Singer does not state that calling a new born or a sick old person a "non-person" in certain situations is not dehumanizing? Oh, in that case it must be true! After all, Singer is basing his opinion on objective ethical facts, right? Wrong:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/01/peter-singers-flawed-logic.html
>You focus on a single criteria as always and ignore all the rest of them.
- I've pointed out three of his criteria for personhood. So how does the shell game begin in determining which criterion is of primary importance and how much of that criterion we need in order to validate a human as a person?
>Not qualifying for complete personhood by Singer s standard does not mean one have the right to bully a person or animal.
- Bullying is not OK, but infanticide is? And this is all based on Singer's subjective criteria? Pathetic.
R:Oh, is that right? Look at the article: "Peter Singer's Flawed Logic." As of January 23, you have not offered one single point regarding the logical argument pointing out Singer's flawed logic.
DeleteBecause those lies and flaws in logic are self-evident. Some have been pointed out to you before, some in the article about Singer. I will leave the job to imnotandrei to dismantle your nonsense in details if he decides to.
R:Why don't you try and demonstrate why you believe the argument is a straw man argument instead of pretending that you already have? Does that make very much sense?
I did not read any books or aticles from Singer besides his FAQ, so I am ill-equiped for a debate (not that being ill-equiped stops you from spouting nonsense and idiocy, Rick). However, the FAQ proved to be enough to expose your lies that he promotes infanticide or bestiality as it was shown in the comments to the article on "top atheists".
R:Actually, I've also pointed out Sam Harris' flawed arguments.
Yes, and then you dishonestly claim that the views of Singer are that of the entire movement of secular humanism. False generalisation fallacy.
The only argument you have offered against Harris is that you cannot derive an "ought" from "is". I have proved to you that we can establish the desired state of actions through science, some actions will increase happiness or well-being, while other actions will decrease it. You just tried to dismiss my argument with the example of smoking, which I did prove was undesirable for the individual in any circumstances. Then you just gave the vague notion of "bohemian life" and ran way from the discussion as usual.
R:I am pointing out the fact that Singer is a highly regarded voice among secular academia. That is what "distinguished professor" signifies. Did you not know that?
Did you know that being a "distinguished professor" does not make the opinion of the person automatically correct or accepted by others? So what if he is a teacher in Princeton? What evidence do you have that ALL his views are popular among humanists?
R:Singer does not state that calling a new born or a sick old person a "non-person" in certain situations is not dehumanizing?
No, it is not dehumanizing. We are not born as grown up and mature beings, Rick. So no, telling that a baby has no personality yet, does not dehumanize him.
R:Bullying is not OK, but infanticide is? And this is all based on Singer's subjective criteria? Pathetic.
Liar, nowhere does Singer state that infanticide is ok. On the contrary, let me post a quote from his FAQ page again:
"So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do."
You dishonestly corrolate infanticide with euthanasia, which is not the same thing. The same way dishonest christian use abortion and murder as synonymes.
P.S. As usual you fail to back up your claims, Rick. Provide proof or at least evidence that it was secular humanism that pushed the customer to insult the child.
Delete>Provide proof or at least evidence that it was secular humanism that pushed the customer to insult the child.
Delete- That is not my claim. My claim is that the opinion of the disgruntled customer is in keeping with the same general types of dehumanizing utilitarian values that Peter Singer is promoting. Show why this is incorrect.
Because this bullying is completely senseless. There are no reasons whatsoever to harm that child. I can bet that Singer is against senseless harm to living beings, be it an animal or a human being. Hence, you are a liar for claiming this is keeping with Singer s moral system.
Delete>Some have been pointed out to you before,
ReplyDelete- As is the case with the article I linked to, my premises stand. They have not been adequately addressed. If so, which premise do you believe is false?:
A summary of Singer's logic on ethics:
1. No basis for objective ethical facts exists.
2. Nevertheless, void of objective ethical facts, valid secular ethical reasoning is still possible.
3. Singer's ethical ideas are implicitly offered as 'objectively valid' principles for society at large.
4. Therefore, it is implied that 'objectively valid' ethical principles can be derived without initial objective ethical facts.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/01/peter-singers-flawed-logic.html
>I did not read any books or aticles from Singer besides his FAQ,
- The FAQ outlines his ideas. Unless you believe it is some kind of forgery, why do you refuse to take his ideas at face value?
>Yes, and then you dishonestly claim that the views of Singer are that of the entire movement of secular humanism.
- That is incorrect. Read a quote from the article above:
"Unfortunately, there is currently a trend towards dehumanization with regard to the teaching of ethics in universities in the US. For example, the "Distinguished Professor" Peter Singer at Princeton University..."
>Liar, nowhere does Singer state that infanticide is ok. On the contrary, let me post a quote from his FAQ page again:
"So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do."
- Singer calls it terrible, not immoral. Where does Singer ever claim that infanticide of "non-persons" is immoral? He offers the opposite, that it is emotionally difficult but ethically acceptable because these beings do not qualify as valid persons in his opinion. You do not seem to understand Singer's views at all on a very basic level. Before you begin calling people liars you should probably do a little research on basic positions.
R:As is the case with the article I linked to, my premises stand. They have not been adequately addressed. If so, which premise do you believe is false?
DeleteI am not that interested in Singer s views in the first place and I am not going to read all his books in details and so on to try in a futile attempt to reason with you. But rest assured, I will be pointing out the most outrageous lies of yours, Rick. Like with his Singer s supposed promotion of bestiality or infanticide.
R:The FAQ outlines his ideas. Unless you believe it is some kind of forgery, why do you refuse to take his ideas at face value?
Because I am not an arrogant idiot like you. I do not make ignorant statements and a short page is not enough to conclude what sort of ethics Singer offers.
R:That is incorrect. Read a quote from the article above
It is still a bold assertion. Do prove that the views of a single professor are a trend in the whole movement.
R:Singer calls it terrible, not immoral. Where does Singer ever claim that infanticide of "non-persons" is immoral? He offers the opposite, that it is emotionally difficult but ethically acceptable because these beings do not qualify as valid persons in his opinion.
Great, now you nitpick with words, terrible = wrong in that context. Would the word "wrong" be acceptable to you since morality is about the right and wrong choices? And here is another quote if you are not satisfied with the obvious one:
"It only means that the wrong done to the infant is not as great as the wrong that would be done to a person who was killed. But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it."
So...On one hand we have the delusional reasoning of Rick accusing Singer of promoting infanticide and the words of the man himself thaty it would be wrong to kill a baby...
3. Singer's ethical ideas are implicitly offered as 'objectively valid' principles for society at large.
DeleteImplicit to you, perhaps.
Hey, Rick; you're the one who got upset when someone used quotes in a reply and wasn't quoting you precisely. You're the one who got upset because your work wasn't technically discredited on a specific date. Yet it's OK for you to add a word to someone else's quote, and argue against that?
That's the straw man, Rick.
And given that you've been shown over and over and over again to misquote people, impute your meanings into what they say, and then run away when you're called on it, no one has *any* reason to trust your assertions about what people have said, or meant, about anything.
As I said a while back, I don't trust what you say even when I agree with it -- I have to go get verification from other sources, because your relationship with the truth is dubious at best.
You claim you want no "uncivilized blog abuse" -- and yet you regularly lie about the people you're referring to, and the people who comment here. Follow your own requests, Rick.
>I am not that interested in Singer s views in the first place and I am not going to read all his books in details and so on to try in a futile attempt to reason with you.
Delete- I see. Call me a liar and then claim your own ignorance justifies your slander. Nice objective moral "system" you've got going there, AnonyRus.
Singer has claimed point blank, in no uncertain terms, that it is a lesser "wrong" to kill a non-person, as he defines it:
Q. You have been quoted as saying: "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." Is that quote accurate?
A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person” (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time.
http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html
As far as all this "straw man" talk is concerned, you are also quite mistaken. Otherwise, do please point out where the error lies:
1. Singer has stated his believe in a book of his that secular reasoning without objective ethical facts is enough for "sound" ethical decisions.
2. And by implying that his ethical principles are suitable for society at large (as most ethical would be considered), Singer is confirming his belief that his ethical principles are objectively valid for society.
3. Singer does not qualify his ethics as though they are only for a certain culture or only for a certain era.
3. Therefore, Singer has offered a logical fallacy, the notion that his personal ethical ideas should be considered objectively valid and sound for society as though they are based on ethical facts. Why is this a fallacy?
1. Sound reasoning must be based on sound, objective facts.
2. Peter Singer has offered no objective ethical facts.
3. Therefore, Peter Singer has not offered any basis for sound ethical reasoning.
So, instead of calling me a liar and claiming your own general ignorance as an excuse for not explaining yourself, you should at least be able to define specifically which point or points you have a problem with.
R:I see. Call me a liar and then claim your own ignorance justifies your slander. Nice objective moral "system" you've got going there, AnonyRus.
DeleteI am calling you a liar at times your distortion of facts is obvious. Like the time you accuse Singer of promoting bestiality and infanticide.
R:Singer has claimed point blank, in no uncertain terms, that it is a lesser "wrong" to kill a non-person, as he defines it
And that is not the same thing as promoting infanticide as you claim. Therefore, you are a liar.
R:As far as all this "straw man" talk is concerned, you are also quite mistaken. Otherwise, do please point out where the error lies:
I have already addressed that point in my previous post.
R:So, instead of calling me a liar and claiming your own general ignorance as an excuse for not explaining yourself, you should at least be able to define specifically which point or points you have a problem with
Yes and I did point out to you what were your lies. Again, you lied about the fact that Singer promotes infanticide and bestiality. That is blatantly false. You also lied about him "dehumanizing" the concept of humanity.
>And that is not the same thing as promoting infanticide as you claim. Therefore, you are a liar.
Delete- Try to slow down and think a little.
1. Singer is pro-choice on infanticide.
2. Theists believe infanticide is immoral.
3. Therefore, Singer is advocating, promoting what others consider immoral.
Why do you continue to deny this? Ultimately Singer evaluates infanticide along the same lines as abortion. Do you deny that pro-choice abortionists promote abortion as a viable moral choice?
1. Pro-choice abortion advocates offer that abortion is a valid moral choice.
2. Therefore, pro-choice abortion advocates promote abortion for certain circumstances.
Next
1. Peter Singer advocates choice in infanticide using the same principles he uses for advocating choice in abortion.
2. Therefore, Peter Singer is pro-choice for infanticide.
3. Advocating a pro-choice position means promoting a morally acceptable choice.
4. Therefore, Singer promotes infanticide as what he considers to be morally acceptable choice.
If you doubt that Singer is pro-choice on infanticide, you should read up on it:
http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/
R:You wrote, "terrible = wrong in that context."
DeleteNo, Singer is not offering this cut and dry definition. You are wrong.
Yep, let us ignore the second quote from Singer where your lie is even more obvious. The one where he specifically says that it would be WRONG to kill a baby.
R:And his position may be considered promotion of infanticide because he is advocating it as a morally viable choice.
Liar. He does not promote infanticide. You dishonestly corrolate infanticide and euthanasia. That is not the same thing.
R:Why do you continue to deny this?
Rick, do you know the difference between euthanasia and infanticide? Do you know the difference between murder and abortion?
Do tell me what part of the following quote you do not understand:
Delete"Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely."
In what manner does"taking active steps" to take a baby's life suggest it is morally wrong to do so? Do explain.
http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html
Your denial is quite strong on this issue. Perhaps this is another good subject for an article.
Alright, let me rephrase the question so even you can understand it:
DeleteDo you understand the difference between child euthanasia and infanticide? Do you understand the difference between abortion and murder?
Is Webster's OK for you?
Delete1. infanticide: the killing of an infant
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infanticide
1. Does this general definition of infant killing offer any distinction between outright murder or "taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely." No, it does not.
Oxford offers two definitions:
"Definition of infanticide - noun
1 [mass noun] the crime of a mother killing her child within a year of birth: cases of infanticide often involve extreme emotional disturbance
the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth: female infanticide was practised to reduce the population in times of famine"
Note, the first example is defines it as illegal and the second example does not define infanticide as illegal but, rather, as an accepted practice in certain cultures.
Peter Singer is clearly advocating the second definition of infanticide, that it should NOT be considered immoral or illegal to actively kill a baby.
Do you have any dictionary definitions that support your interpretation - that infanticide is always supposed to be considered murder?
I am asking YOU, Rick...Let me try with capital letters this time:
DeleteDO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INFANTICIDE AND CHILD EUTHANASIA? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MURDER AND ABORTION?
Those are yes or no questions, Rick. Now tell me, do you understand the difference or no. If you understand the difference, then the answer is "yes". If you do not understand the difference, then the answer is "no".
>I am asking YOU, Rick...Let me try with capital letters this time:
DeleteDO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INFANTICIDE AND CHILD EUTHANASIA? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MURDER AND ABORTION?
Those are yes or no questions, Rick.
- Yes, I understand the differences between the definitions of those words.
Let me ask you some questions:
Do you understand that it is technically illegal in the US to kill a living infant whether or not you call it infanticide or euthanasia?
Do you understand that warm and fuzzy feelings about 'humane actions' do not change the fact that killing an infant in the US for any reason is presently illegal?
Do you understand that you are defending the opinions of someone who is promoting what is presently an illegal act, something defined as murder?
R:Yes, I understand the differences between the definitions of those words.
DeleteGood, you understand those are two different things. Promoting infanticide and promoting the principles of euthanasia are two distinct things that you CANNOT USE AS SYNONYMS. The same way you do not call a soldier a killer just because part of their duty is to stop the enemy including by killing. Calling a proponent of child euthanasia as a proponent of infanticide is just as dishonest as calling a soldier a killer.
Now, let us look at the quote from Singer and help your malfunctionning brain to understand basic reading comprehension:
"Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies."
In this quote Singer speaks about cases when the child s destiny is already sealed. Due to the grave state of the child s health, it is concluded by the doctors and parents that the child WILL NOT SURVIVE. Only then the doctors will cut the child off life-support. That is a STANDARD medical procedure.
So what is the stance of Singer?
"My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely"
Translation for the impaired: instead of letting the baby suffer several hours before its IMMINENT death, the human thing to do would be to relieve their suffering. Capiche?
R:Do you understand that it is technically illegal in the US to kill a living infant whether or not you call it infanticide or euthanasia?
Yes, euthanasia and infanticide is illegal in the USA. And you are an idiot for not understanding that withholding life support is NOT infanticide or euthanasia.
R:Do you understand that you are defending the opinions of someone who is promoting what is presently an illegal act, something defined as murder?
I understand that you are an idiot, Rick. It has NOTHING to do with this being illegal or legal. Voting for blacks and women also used to be illegal. Something being illegal does not automatically make it wrong.
Howdy! I could have sworn I've been to this blog before but after checking through some of the post I realized it's new to me.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, I'm definitely glad I found it and I'll be bookmarking and checking
back frequently!
Also visit my website : hotmail support
Hi Rick,
ReplyDeleteI don't want to be off-topic, but I can't seem to connect through Facebook or e-mail. You helped promote "Question Evolution Day" last year, did you want to do that again? If so, here's the first of the link cascade.