“At long last…”, the question comes boiling up in my head begging to be shouted from the top of the tallest building, the highest mountain, screamed across the world. “At long last, Dr. Peter Singer, have you no decency?” I want to ask the same question of the heads of department, the administrators and trustees of the “institution” that pays the man a salary. Institution is the proper word since it must be a place for madmen, run by madmen, educating madmen as they lend their name, their honor and their prestige to a singer of such mad songs as his and honor him as a respected member of their “tribe”. To my mind their doing so lends weight to his utterances and heaps dishonor on them all, and on all who don’t stand and point at them and cry, “SHAME!”
It is Singer’s particular gift to us to have lifted from the bloody mud the sword bearing the dripping banner of the armies of those whose first thought was and is death for the weak, death for the “useless”, death for the diseased and deformed as they define the words. It is the banner of a hundred genocidal madmen, of a thousand smug eugenicists now become Singer’s banner to carry. Over the top? Well, perhaps. Singer does sing sweetly.
After all, he is a professor at one of our most prestigious universities; many degreed, much honored and respected. At one point he argued that we ought to be able to murder any new born child since newborns were not persons according to his definition; human beings with moral agency. And he kept teaching. Why not? He is tenured, which is almost as secure a position as being a Democrat in Massachusetts. That kids can be “offed” by Mom and Dad is very consistent with his philosophical outlook, after all. I think it’s called Utilitarianism, as in, “We don’t need another coffee maker.” His public writings and public utterances indicate that he thinks moral agency a thing that does not develop until we reach the age of two, give or take. In the case of disabled or diseased specimens, one may never become a “person” in the sense that Singer employs the word; and so, there is no harm done, no foul incurred in simply killing one of them at any time.
You’re probably wondering, as your stomach churns, how can all of this be true. Well, if I were to hot link you to all of the eye-blasting stuff he’s written or said on the subject over the years this thing would be flagged as spam and never get into your computer. Google him. But, here’s an article written by someone else who connects to another article which gets even more specific about Dr. Singer’s agenda which is, in a few words, about the same as anyone else whose primary interest is “improving the breed” whether that is chickens, salmon, horses, computers or us. If it works, looks good or tastes good and is relatively glitch or disease free, lets make more of ’em. If not? 86 ’em.
But children are the ones Singer seems to favor most. And, that makes sense. Only whackos today consider children worth protecting. It strikes me as the absolute truth, because Singer works in a big deal Ivy League University filled with very smart guys and girls and no one says, “This guy ought to be muzzled.” Questions of academic freedom aside I wonder how far he’d get if he went around saying stuff like we need to re-institute slavery since people with black skin are not really persons. Would he get an invite to the UN to address them like a certain laughing stock president? How many of his colleagues would defend his right to teach about that?
I just wish the guy would stop. Maybe, if he did, he could spend his time thinking about recipes for spring lamb, or veal, or suckling pig with new potatoes and early peas, and sipping beaujolais nouveau. The guy’s probably a vegetarian, though; and a PETA member.