Skip to content

Why I dislike Peter Singer: Cult of Death?

December 16, 2009

Why I dislike Peter Singer: Cult of Death?


The terms that probably confuses people the most are the terms that are laced with loaded language. Loaded with positive sounding adjectives and nouns rather than any real and concise description of what it is. For example in the old Wester Movies we heard the term ‘Indian Braves’ which instantly creates the image that they are all brave. Were they? Some yes, a majority maybe but to consider all of them brave is to stretch plausibility beyond reason. Hence we are left with a term that is unintentionally loaded with positive emotional language. Now this is not to condemn the makers of such films for taking a little artistic licence but to explain how easy it is to be swayed by a word that has positive emotional connotations. Just like ‘Happy Meal’. Does it literally mean what it says?


Take the word ‘morality’ for instance. It is a word that has both positive and negative connotations for different groups in society. The whole problem with the word is not so much whether any morality is controversial but whose morality should dominate in society. So the word becomes both a form of condemnation and a way of promoting a policy. ‘Morality’ becomes the evil ‘Nanny State Wowser’ or it can become ‘What saves us from Anarchy.’ Yet even more loaded these days is the word ‘Ethics’. Instead of having to deal with all the negative baggage associated with moralizing we can use a new more confusing terms to sell the positive aspects of a policy. We hear the term used constantly in such things as ‘The Ethical treatment of animals’, ‘Ethical business practices’ and ‘Bio Ethics’. It has become the new buzz word that means ‘Good’ , ‘what good people do’ and ‘for the greater good.’ If there is a word to pervert, then people will find it and pervert it until it ceases to have any common meaning. ‘Ethics’ is such a word just like ‘Love’, ‘Compassion’, ‘Patriotic’ , ‘Courageous’, ‘Progressive’ and any positive sounding utterance that you can find. Policy promoters want you to feel good about what they say and positive language is the sugar coating that does the trick.


Professor Peter Singer is a master of positive spin and redefining words to make his policies sound reasonable and acceptable. He actively promotes himself as a Bio Ethicist and writes books on the subject of Ethics (‘Practical Ethics’ being perhaps his most famous to date). Yet the problem is with the term Bio Ethics is that it begs a question: Whose Ethics? In the case of Peter Singer’s Ethics it is without doubt Peter Singer. So we are left with nothing more than a subjective view of what should be right and wrong decision about life and death as deemed by Peter Singer. This is fine if he was only talking about alcohol drinking habits and clothing attire but that is not the case. However Peter Singer’s ‘Ethical’ pronouncements deal with the power of life and death over humans.


There is a lot people can say about his qualifications and his elevated position at Princeton University in the USA; there is a lot that can be said about what people see as his achievements in almost singlehandedly starting Animal Liberation and there is even a lot that people can about his intellectual prowess. However it is his policies that matter well beyond the princely adulation of his adoring fans. It is what he promotes and who he influencing that matters. The question is not whether Peter Singer is some intellectual superstar but whether his agenda is worthy of subscription.

I make no secret of my dislike of Peter Singer’s agenda as I think that he is working hard to fulfil some self styled revolution in killing. How do I come to this conclusion? Just read some of his quotes.


Peter Singer promotion of infanticide:

Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.”

“When the death of the disabled infant,…will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.”

“Therefore, if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.”


And be ruthless about it:

“put aside feelings based on its small, helpless and — sometimes — cute appearance, so we can look at the more ethically relevant aspects, such as its quality of life.”

Peter Singer on the value of a Human Life:

“Human life is not sacrosanct, but a certain kind of life can be “meaningful.”

“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”

“The traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological and demographic developments.”


Peter Singer compares the value of Humans to Animals:

“An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable.”

“All the arguments to prove man’s superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals.”

“If we compare a severely defective human infant with a nonhuman animal, a dog or a pig, for example, we will often find the nonhuman to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and anything else that can plausibly be considered morally significant.”

On the Question of Bestiality:

“mutually satisfying activities of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals.”

(Just read the article and shiver. Don’t eat meat, marry it instead?)


Though it may not be cool to dump on Professor Peter Singer, I am happy to do so. Cool is for those that care about such social climbing. As for me I know that this is a mere blog and few people here are in a position to change the world. If the word ‘Ethical’ has any meaning in the Peter Singer universe then that meaning is seriously warped to match his own agenda.




4 Comments leave one →
  1. similimodo permalink
    December 28, 2009 6:39 pm


    So this reprobate champions animal liberation whilst simultaenously promoting bestiality?

    And people fawn over his views? Like Bambi reading a gay porn mag?

    Until I read this post, I’d never heard of the guy. I wonder if he’s related to the people who invented the Singer sewing machine. At least they did something useful with their lives. They gave my seamstress grandmother a lot of pleasure.

    The sordid details of this reprobate remind me of Coco Chanel and the whole Chanel perfume range. While the world knows about the Chanels who have cashed in on the vanity of women, and let avarice and lust rule their lives, very few people know that there is a martyr in the family, St Peter Mary Chanel – the protomartyr of Oceania.

    For a long time, Australian Catholics have prayed to St Peter Mary Chanel as a patron of the antipodes, due to the fact we haven’t had a saint of our own to pray to, and he at least died in our region. We also pray to St Francis Xavier because at least he got as far as Japan. And St Therese of the Infant Jesus, because she’s the patron saint of missionaries. (They’ll probably get their marching orders if Mary MacKillop gets canonised).

    That was an interesting read. One of my favourite genres is true crime (serial killers/mass murderers of the phsyical kind), but I also love reading about people who kill people’s souls, and this guy qualifies in a major way. He needs more prayers and more grace than Judas Iscariot.

    It’s scary to think of how many people align themselves with his views.

    David …


  2. December 28, 2009 9:05 pm


    Thanks for your comments.

    I scarcely know where to begin. However if you are interested Singer will be coming to Melbourne for the International Atheists confrence/convention/lovein/primal scream session next year (Along with Richard Dawkins).

    It should be a shnore fest/cry baby session/rage session.

    People on love Singer because it is cool to be social psychopath with a Professorship at Princton.
    Like the Sacred Cows from Get Smart sing:
    “Thrill, thrill. thrill
    Kill, kill, kill
    Bump off the square…”

    Get Smart make more sense to me every day.


  3. similimodo permalink
    December 29, 2009 8:31 am


    Going to see Peter Singer and Richard Dawkins is about as appealing as being conned into attending an Amway conference.

    I’ll give it a miss, thanks very much.

    I’m sure repeats of Get Smart on Go Channel would be a more profitable way to spend my time.



  4. December 29, 2009 8:48 am

    David I concur.
    The conference will be richer without my snoring.

    However on a side note: 99 has to be one of the hottest woman who ever came to a sit com. No wonder I still love the show.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: