Evil knows no bounds if not bound. There are "Singerians" who live out his ideas everyday in one way or another I am sorry to say. -0/5-/2001
* * * * *
Professor Singer's nihilistic thinking took me aback. "This man cannot possibly be serious," I thought. "Is this bait? This is too obvious." Yes, he got our attention & then some. The comments posted by D.B. on 5/4/01 clarified the professor's premise somewhat. Peter Singer is, after all, a philosopher. There is
nothing "enlightened" about his "suggestion." And, bless Rabbi Shafran for using that hardly-ever-used word: morality. - L. R. -0/5-/2001
* * * * *
Mr Singer's ideas remind me of the Tribe of Benjamin which because of its Singerian bent had, to be wipped out by the other Israelite tribesmen. He is more akin to Hitler/Nimrod than anything else. - J. M. -0/5-/2001
* * * * *
Surely the professor must be applying the concept of reductio ad absurdam to his thesis. if not, there is a lot of time and money wasted on an education that promotes this line of thinking literally. - h. g. -0/5-/2001
* * * * *
Peter Singer gave a lecture at Yale Hillel in
a Jewish Ethics Series in the fall of 1999.
In it he stated that, in following ideas to their
logical conclusion, he was trying to make people
think of the implications of their conclusions.
The reductio ad absurdam usually takes people aback and
and urges them to think more clearly about the
possible consequences of their positions.
It was probably the best lecture I have ever
heard. It was attended by 300-400 students
and faculty and held in the Yale Law School
auditorium. I am delighted to see your reaction
to it and am sure he would be pleased.
- D. B. -0/5-/2001
* * * * *
I respectfully disagree. Ultimate morality and "true" moral precepts only can come from God. If they are developed by man, and are subject to a prior determination, every man's arguments are of interest (or at least every learned man, as Professor Singer must be, however we might disagree with him. Even the Rabbis sometimes refer to man as an animal, albeit the animal who prays. However, I think concepts of social utiltiy and goodness change from time to time and culture to culture. Only belief in G-d and reference to G-d's absolute moral precepts justify reliance and reference to absolute standards of morality. The real slippery slope may be to justify certain rules because they're obviously "good" "wise" or universally adopted, leads to arguments by persons, including wellmeaning and well intentioned, that certain principles aren't necessatry or no longer count for a partuicular reason in a particular time. We can justify some laws, but many are simply precepts or commandments, kashrut and shotness come to mind. I have no philosophical opinion whether it's bad to eat treif or cohabit with sheep. Luckily in most cases, there are more or less clear or derived rules which draw on commandments, and how nice it is to be able to say, "I'm commanded" about a certain thing, and I like to think I'd do it anyway even if not commanded. That is, in the perfect world my desires and my obligations will be congruent. Sorry for taking such space, but I think it's wrong to refute Professor Singer on the grounds that not even Thomas Jefferson would have permitted such conduct to go on. - I. G. -0/5-/2001
* * * * *
The absurdity of playing out relativism in values to their "logical" conclusions continues to amaze. It is hard to believe that he is actually serious. -0/5-/2001
* * * * *
Yes, I have long considered Singer a scarey man. This latest news confirms it. Thank you for publishing the truth. -0/5-/2001
* * * * *
What's most interesting about such blatant nihilistic behavior by the so called professor, is the apparent incongruence between his and others intellectually held beliefs and their actual day to day lives. Surely, relationships with spouses and "loved" ones are no more than primates cavorting in the jungle, love - merely electrochemical nonsense intended just to spread his selfish genes, and every other uniquely human value and emotion just plain animilistic bahavior. Why then does this professor have the need to spread his gospel? What other pure animal has the unquenchable need to search for what is right and then relay his findings to the general public.
At least be consistent. Follow in the path of the ignoble Bertrand Russel and others and truly make your lives a sad reductionist animal life. As the author wrote, it serves us well to realize where the baby got lost in the discarded bathwater, and what we could do, as the covenental people, to rightly reclaim the uniqueness, dignity, and above all the notion of partnership in Creation, that's the bedrock of what it means to be human. True humans rejoice! Bravo. - Y. F. -0/5-/2001
* * * * *
Submit Your Comments Note: Comments are for display on this page, they are not sent to the author.
