RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrincePeter Singer has a nasty way of pushing everything to the extreme. His arguments on abortion try to induce the reader to believe that unless you think all contraception is immoral, you should support abortion up to the time of ...
(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
Nice critique that fails to address any of his actual arguments, and rather, predictably goes for the emotional 'it's yucky' argument for popular support.
Because in America, causing maximum suffering to a living being via factory farming methods is acceptable since the ends result in financial gain, but a situation that causes a person pleasure.... well, call the feds!
Dion, you're comment is contradictory. Pleasure with an animal is one way, for the sake of the human. We can't know the animal is offering any form of consent or whether, furthermore, there is any actual self for which to "offend" in the case of the animal. If that is true, then how can there actually be a level of suffering for any animal if there is also no level of pleasure in the sense that there is no self? Therefore, suffering cause by unethical farming is no longer unethical.
IMBWF, if the animal is instigating the act, for whatever reason, it seems logical to assume the animal is willing. If the 150 lb Great Dane doesnt want any sexual attention from it's 110lb owner (who has no teeth or claws), then the Dane will express that. people who say animals cant consent obviously have obviously never owned a pet, as Singer alluded to in his essay. if the dog is humping your leg, then whatever his motives may be, he is genuinly looking towards YOU for sex. if he doesn't want sex, then the growling and barred teeth may be an indicator. in short, USE COMMON SENSE!
"A quick survey of my male friends from rural states ("No") reveals this number, too, to be a bit inflated."
Not a legitimate source of data, or a meaningful comment to add to an article.
"Having 'established' that bestiality isn't rare..."
You provide no evidence that bestiality, in a general sense of any sexual pleasure exchanged between species, is rare. Even if it is rare, that is missing the entire point of Singer's arguments. Its possible rarity is inconsequential to whether it is ethical or not.
"'But is it worse for the hen than living for a year or more crowded with four or five other hens in a barren wire cage so small that they can never stretch their wings . . . ?' Has the proponent of animal rights backed himself into a corner?"
I don't understand the argument here. No, he has not backed himself into a corner. He is saying that a hen which dies from a man trying to have sex with it possibly endures less total suffering than one forced to produce eggs at a factory farm. He is not saying that either act is ethically right, and if you know anything about his views, you know that he would denounce both as ethically monstrous. The point he is making is that the majority of people support one through buying eggs, but demonize the other, while both result in enormous suffering to hens.
"If he busies mainstream Americans with trying to put out brushfires like this one on our left fringe, then the long, slow burn in the center of the culture war becomes less relevant."
He is not busying mainstream America with trivial issues. This small review is the only thing that I know about where he talks about bestiality because, as I've heard him say in interviews, it is indeed a relatively trivial issue. It is just an outcome of his consequentialist philosophy, but people like to bring it up because of its taboo nature. He spends the much, much greater portion of his efforts on fighting problems like poverty in developing nations. He is not pushing any kind of pro-bestiality legislature agenda because it's just not an important issue. I think people like to bring up bestiality as a terrifying implication of his ethical principles, so I am glad he addressed it in a reasonable paper.
Not a legitimate source of data.
"Having 'established' that bestiality isn't rare..."
You provide no evidence that bestiality, in a general sense of any sexual pleasure from an animal, is rare. Even if it is rare, that is missing the entire point of Singer's arguments. Its possible rarity is inconsequential to whether it is ethical or not.
"'But is it worse for the hen than living for a year or more crowded with four or five other hens in a barren wire cage so small that they can never stretch their wings . . . ?' Has the proponent of animal rights backed himself into a corner?"
I don't understand the argument here. No, he has not backed himself into a corner. He is saying that a hen
"A quick survey of my male friends from rural states ("No") reveals this number, too, to be a bit inflated."
Not a legitimate source of data, or a meaningful comment to add to an article.
"Having 'established' that bestiality isn't rare..."
You provide no evidence that bestiality, in a general sense of any sexual pleasure exchanged between species, is rare. Even if it is rare, that is missing the entire point of Singer's arguments. Its possible rarity is inconsequential to whether it is ethical or not.
"'But is it worse for the hen than living for a year or more crowded with four or five other hens in a barren wire cage so small that they can never stretch their wings . . . ?' Has the proponent of animal rights backed himself into a corner?"
I don't understand the argument here. No, he has not backed himself into a corner. He is saying that a hen which dies from a man trying to have sex with it possibly endures less total suffering than one forced to produce eggs at a factory farm. He is not saying that either act is ethically right, and if you know anything about his views, you know that he would denounce both as ethically monstrous. The point he is making is that the majority of people support one through buying eggs, but demonize the other, while both result in enormous suffering to hens.
"If he busies mainstream Americans with trying to put out brushfires like this one on our left fringe, then the long, slow burn in the center of the culture war becomes less relevant."
He is not busying mainstream America with trivial issues. This small review is the only thing that I know about where he talks about bestiality because, as I've heard him say in interviews, it is indeed a relatively trivial issue. It is just an outcome of his consequentialist philosophy, but people like to bring it up because of its taboo nature. He spends the much, much greater portion of his efforts on fighting problems like poverty in developing nations. He is not pushing any kind of pro-bestiality legislature agenda because it's just not an important issue. I think people like to bring up bestiality as a terrifying implication of his ethical principles, so I am glad he addressed it in a reasonable paper.
Sorry that some chunks of my comment were repeated. This comment box is tiny so I used an external text editor to type my comment. I must have accidentally forgotten to delete what I originally put in the box.
Peter Singer will be remembered as the most unethical ethicist that ever lived. Sex with animals is repulsive and psychologically destructive to humans. His views on infanticide are equally damaging to the human psyche. If one studies and seeks the essence of ETHICS, these views would be the farthest thing from the truths found. Human sex is an emotional, spiritual, and physical act and one who reduces it to a level of barbaric, animalistic physical pleasure is surely of that nature himself. Any spiritual person, regardless of your worldview and belief system, could not and would not defend Singer's views. Be discerning students! Do not fall prey to false notoriety. Meditate on these topics within the inner chambers of your mind and you will know the ethical truth to both bestiality and infanticide. All humanity is of precious value and these two things try to make it cheap... at a great cost.