Singer's Outrageous Views On Abortion
Singer Outrageous Views
“The Singer Scandal at Princeton” essay perceives thoughts of killing as a logical explanation for one to gain happiness. Bio-ethicist and philosopher Peter Singer depicts a man with great power and influence through his teachings and writings. Consequently, lacking human values and having non-religious ethics shows his ignorance toward the theory that humans are equivalent to animals; a child’s deceased in the right reason can bring happiness, also that 28 days after the birth you can still kill an infant with no remorse.
Peter Singer’s presumption that human beings are equivalent to animals and deserve equal consideration informs one of the lack of scientific evidence to support this clause. Particularly, because science declares humans: the smartest species on earth. Singer states, “From his premises of the moral equivalence of humans and animals, and the outright superiority of healthy animals over defective humans,” he there concludes his decision of the various forms of infanticide and euthanasia. Singer also states, “That a human’s life is not necessarily more sacred than a dog’s, and that it might be more compassionate to carry out medical experiments on hopelessly disabled, unconscious orphans than on perfectly healthy rats.” This statement further shows how far this man non-religious ethics are out the window. He would take a sick and disabled child and have no problems testing on them. Nevertheless, there is not an accordance to animal testing either; rather it is more human to test on animals then to test on one of our own no matter what disability that person may have. This portrayal shows one man’s ethics gone wrong, to put differently there is no ethical or scientific reason showing that animals are equivalent to humans.
Singer describes, “A period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to live as others.” This statement...
Please login to view the full essay...