Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: The most influential philosopher alive

  1. #1
    Frontline Voice of Reason
    TOASTMASTER GENERAL
    BigBadBrian's Avatar
    Member No
    51
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    02-09-2013 @ 06:23 AM
    Location
    Lighted Streets on Quiet Nights
    Posts
    10,620
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    276
    Thanked 193 Times in 163 Posts


    Rep Power
    33

    The most influential philosopher alive

    The most influential philosopher alive
    Marvin Olasky


    December 2, 2004


    PRINCETON, N.J. -- Republicans are winning elections, but the long-term problem of the left dominance within academia remains. Consider, for example, the influence of Princeton professor Peter Singer.

    Many readers may be saying, "Peter who?" -- but The New York Times, explaining how his views trickle down through media and academia to the general populace, noted that "No other living philosopher has had this kind of influence." The New England Journal of Medicine said he has had "more success in effecting changes in acceptable behavior" than any philosopher since Bertrand Russell. The New Yorker called him the "most influential" philosopher alive.

    Don't expect Singer to be quoted heavily on the issue that roiled the Nov. 2 election, same-sex marriage. That for him is intellectual child's play, already logically decided, and it's time to move on to polyamory. While politicians debate the definition of marriage between two people, Singer argues that any kind of "fully consensual" sexual behavior involving two people or 200 is ethically fine.

    For example, when I asked him recently about necrophilia (what if two people make an agreement that whoever lives longest can have sexual relations with the corpse of the person who dies first?), he said, "There's no moral problem with that." Concerning bestiality -- should people have sex with animals, seen as willing participants? -- he responded, "I would ask, 'What's holding you back from a more fulfilling relationship?' (but) it's not wrong inherently in a moral sense."

    If the 21st century becomes a Singer century, we will also see legal infanticide of born children who are ill or who have ill older siblings in need of their body parts.

    Question: What about parents conceiving and giving birth to a child specifically to kill him, take his organs and transplant them into their ill older children? Singer: "It's difficult to warm to parents who can take such a detached view, (but) they're not doing something really wrong in itself." Is anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale? "No."

    When we had lunch after our initial interview and I read back his answers to him, he said he would be "concerned about a society where the role of some women was to breed children for that purpose," but he stood by his statements. He also reaffirmed that it would be ethically OK to kill 1-year-olds with physical or mental disabilities, although ideally the question of infanticide would be "raised as soon as possible after birth."

    These proposals are biblically and historically monstrous, but Singer is a soft-spoken Princeton professor. Whittaker Chambers a half-century ago wrote that, "Man without God is a beast, and never more beastly than when he is most intelligent about his beastliness," but part of Singer's effectiveness in teaching "Practical Ethics" to Princeton undergraduates is that he does not come across personally as beastly.

    C.S. Lewis 61 years ago wrote "That Hideous Strength," a novel with villainous materialists employed by N.I.C.E. (the National Institute of Coordinated Experiments). Their offices were to be in a building that "would make quite a noticeable addition to the skyline of New York." But Singer sits in an unostentatious office at Princeton's Center for Human Values, which is housed in a small and homey grayish-green building with a front yard that slopes down the street. The center even has a pastoral-sounding address: 5 Ivy Lane.

    C.S. Lewis's N.I.C.E. leaders are totalitarian. They use media control and a police force to push opponents into submission. Singer says he's not totalitarian because he accepts debate and says that "people can draw the line anywhere." But, within Singerism, should they? He scorns attempts to set up standards of good and evil that go beyond utilitarianism, and hopes to convince people willingly to do it his way.

    The challenge for conservatives during the next several decades will be not only to win elections, but to win the intellectual battles.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  2. #2
    Head Fluffer
    TLR's Avatar
    Member No
    5351
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    08-07-2014 @ 04:34 PM
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    491
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Rep Power
    20
    This clown sounds like a real POS...
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 5 most influential women in rock 'n roll
    By Steve Savicki in forum House of Music
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 05-19-2014, 09:45 PM
  2. 2 pac is alive
    By Dave's Bitch in forum House of Music
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 12-30-2005, 02:55 PM
  3. Alive and Well!
    By moose in forum Main VH/DLR Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-02-2004, 03:48 PM
  4. Skull And Bones: Influential Force Or Load Of Hooey?
    By lucky wilbury in forum The Front Line
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-03-2004, 11:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •