24 ms·

In his book “Practical Ethics” he recommends infanticide up to 2 years old as a logical extension to abortion.

by tomcam 3y ago

barry-cotter 3y ago
Yes. Do you have a point to add to that? Do you feel there’s some reason he’s obviously wrong for example?
- yossarian1408 3y ago
  Relevant context. Singer has a lot of clout because people read some of his stuff in a first year philosophy class. For those who didn't get the memo that the man is a crazy misanthrope, him taking the idea of infanticide seriously is a pretty good indicator of what his specific grift actually is.
  - burgh 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - spacechild1 3y ago
      > A 23 months old human is generally less intelligent than a dog Wow. Do you have any experience with little kids? With 23 months my daughter was drawing pictures, singing songs, laughing at my jokes, reenacting scenes from theater plays, etc.
      - barry-cotter 3y ago
        The question isn’t if 2 year olds are intelligent it’s if dogs are of comparable intelligence to a human 2 year old. They are. > As for language, the average dog can learn 165 words, including signals, and the "super dogs" (those in the top 20 percent of dog intelligence) can learn 250 words, Coren says. "The upper limit of dogs' ability to learn language is partly based on a study of a border collie named Rico who showed knowledge of 200 spoken words and demonstrated 'fast-track learning,' which scientists believed to be found only in humans and language learning apes," Coren said. > Dogs can also count up to four or five, said Coren. And they have a basic understanding of arithmetic and will notice errors in simple computations, such as 1+1=1 or 1+1=3. > Four studies he examined looked how dogs solve spatial problems by modeling human or other dogs' behavior using a barrier type problem. Through observation, Coren said, dogs can learn the location of valued items (treats), better routes in the environment (the fastest way to a favorite chair), how to operate mechanisms (such as latches and simple machines) and the meaning of words and symbolic concepts (sometimes by simply listening to people speak and watching their actions). > During play, dogs are capable of deliberately trying to deceive other dogs and people in order to get rewards, said Coren. "And they are nearly as successful in deceiving humans as humans are in deceiving dogs." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090810025241.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090810025241.h...
        spacechild1 3y ago
        I have been replying to OP who literally said: > A 23 months old human is generally less intelligent than a dog and has a consciousness vastly different from us. If the lives of people (and everyone else) got better from killing such a being, then why not? So what is your point? Is today "rationalist edgeloard"-day?
        burgh 3y ago
        [dead]
        spacechild1 3y ago
        In fact, I do acknowledge that many things we do to animals are horrific. But this is just whataboutism. So you are really telling me that you are ok with killing little kids for "utilitarian good" (whatever that is)? You still haven't answered my question: do you have any real-life experience with little kids? I am pretty sure you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't spew such obvious bullshit. Now let's remember what you said in your original post: > Why not take infanticide seriously? A 23 months old human is generally less intelligent than a dog and has a consciousness vastly different from us. Honestly, that's one of the most fucked up things I have ever read on HN. Congratulations!
        burgh 3y ago
        I'm sure it feels like that to a loving parent, especially when you think about your own child. Your feelings are valid.
    - chasd00 3y ago
      a 23 month old human will beg for their life. Doesn't that contradict his position on killing sentient animals?
      - barry-cotter 3y ago
        Do you think dogs and pigs who are aware of what’s about to happen don’t?
        chasd00 3y ago
        That the point, the author can’t have it both ways.
        barry-cotter 3y ago
        Peter Singer aims for consistency, for not having it both ways. If killing a being of neural structure X is moral then have the same standard for human and non-human animals. He isn’t pretending that being in or out of its mother is morally relevant. If killing a nine month old “fetus” is moral killing a 3 minute old baby is. Singer will bite all those bullets.
- spacechild1 3y ago
  Are you being serious? Or is this just some wicked kind of sarcasm?
  - spacechild1 3y ago
    To the downvoters: do you have any experience with little kids? As a father of a 2 year old, it is pretty obvious what's wrong with infanticide...
    - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      Well, I am a former embryo and fetus. I was given the opportunity to be born, and so I became pro-life. That seems like a pretty obvious and logical decision.
      - spacechild1 3y ago
        Abortion of a 12 week old fetus is in no way comparable to infanticide. That's the point I am trying to make.
        NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
        What makes it different? Umbilical cord? Immersed in amniotic fluid? Roundly dehumanized and unpersoned by society?
        spacechild1 3y ago
        Do you eat meat?
        NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
        Not on Fridays, no. For many years I've offered this up as a sacrifice for my little brothers and sisters who are murdered because of a "human right". I find it personally revolting that people would assent to my own murder. I am the product of an unplanned pregnancy, and it is mere happenstance that I was not strangled, torn limb from limb, had my skull crushed, and my spine snipped apart at the nape of the neck, then carefully extracted piece by bloody piece, reassembled in a dish (to make sure that nothing was left behind to infect mom - abortions are "safe"), and dumped in a biological waste bin to be incinerated. I escaped that fate, but others do not, so I abstain from meat on every Friday of the year. I do not understand why you and all the others would not assent to my grisly murder as an infant, as a 50-year-old, or perhaps not even as a feeble and helpless 96-year-old hospital patient, but you would readily take up the speculum and scalpel just because I had an umbilical cord attached.
avgcorrection 3y ago
The “cutoff” always comes up in abortion debates, and when someone argues for a very late term abortion, the other side is sure to bring up infanticide. Polite people/amateur philosophers leave it there. Professional philosophers pick up the slack and deal with the heinous leftover questions…
- tomcam 3y ago
  Legislators, and therefore voters must also deal with the heinous leftover questions.
basisword 3y ago
If it’s in relation to abortion cutoff times it’s an important question to ask. I’ve never met someone with a rational answer to that question. It mostly boils down to what they personally feel comfortable with emotionally (and that’s fine, but not something you can apply in law for all people).
- George83728 3y ago
  > It mostly boils down to what they personally feel comfortable with emotionally (and that’s fine, but not something you can apply in law for all people). Every democratic country has laws which are motivated by the way people feel emotionally. Check out this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe#/media/File:Abortion_on_request_legality_(Eurasia_29-06-2022).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe#/media/File... 12 weeks in Germany, 24 weeks in the UK. Why is there such a difference? Because these laws are based on how people feel.
  - iinnPP 3y ago
    Canada's is legal up until the fetus leaves the womb. It's also possible to kill a fetus inside the womb and suffer no consequence for said killing. https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/arianna-goberdhan-fetus-homicide-1.5122096 https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/arianna-goberdhan-fetus-homi...
    - specialist 3y ago
      That Canadian law does not cover the edge case of first-degree murder for a fetus is a hole in the rules, not permission to kill.
      - iinnPP 3y ago
        I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Do you have more recent information that shows it is now illegal to forcefully terminate the functionality of a 40-week fetus while in the womb in Canada? Calling it a hole in the rules is inaccurate. It's not a person. You can disagree if you want. My post was informational and intentionally lacking opinion.
SanderNL 3y ago
That’s so interesting. Thanks for the book recommendation.
specialist 3y ago
Ugh, that's awful. Apologies, but I could not find any recommendations for killing babies. Please clarify. Practical Ethics 3rd ed [2011], Peter Singer https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=02C20FF721FBFC562268D14EB43A438F https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=02C20FF721FBFC562268D14... Perhaps an earlier edition advocated infanticide? https://libgen.is/search.php?&req=singer+Practical+Ethics&phrase=1&view=simple&column=def&sort=year&sortmode=DESC https://libgen.is/search.php?&req=singer+Practical+Ethics&ph...
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Seems logical. What is the problem?
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
[flagged]
- tomcam 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 3y ago
      We need you to stop using HN for ideological flamewar. You've been doing it a lot, and breaking the site guidelines a lot in other ways too, such as by crossing into personal attack: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36247136 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36247136 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36243998 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36243998 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36243288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36243288 and failing to edit out swipes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36195095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36195095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36195079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36195079 I don't want to ban you because I don't get an impression of malice or abuse from your comments, but we need you to review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the intended spirit of this site. Ideological battle, political battle, and flamewar are very much against that spirit. We want curious, thoughtful, substantive, respectful conversation. Please do that going forward, and refrain from posting when you can't.
      - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
        Got it. Dumb luck I saw this post, it was hidden. I didn't know anything was getting flagged. Didn't know how to see these messages. I'd say it is 50/50, some of my posts were responses in-kind, and to me, some seem more like the other person was the one with the problem, and maybe flagging is itself an attack. Definitely some gray area in interpreting these. And, there are definitely some hot button topics that get flames going everywhere, and I got in the crossfire. But, I did review the guidelines, and your history of past warnings to others. So know there is a 'two wrongs don't make a right' rule. So, I'll watch it. I'd rather keep HN as it is than fight.
RobinL 3y ago
Whether you agree with him or not, the argument is more nuanced. I believe the relevant section is page 169 of this: https://www.stafforini.com/docs/Singer%20-%20Practical%20ethics.pdf https://www.stafforini.com/docs/Singer%20-%20Practical%20eth... Some of the text is copied and pasted below, but it should be read and interpreted in context: ABORTION AND INFANTICIDE There remains one major objection to the argument I have advanced in favour of abortion. We have already seen that the strength of the conservative position lies in the difficulty liberals have in pointing to a morally significant line of demarcation between an embryo and a newborn baby. The standard liberal position needs to be able to point to some such line, because liberals usually hold that it is permissible to kill an embryo or fetus but not a baby. I have argued that the life of a fetus (and even more plainly, of an embryo) is of no greater value than the life of a nonhuman animal at a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel. etc., and that since no fetus is a person no fetus has the same claim to life as a person. Now it must be admitted that these arguments apply to the newborn baby as much as to the fetus. A week-old baby is not a rational and self-conscious being, and there are many nonhuman animals whose rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel. and so on, exceed that of a human baby a week or a month old. If the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby does not either, and the life of a newborn baby is of less value to it than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee is to the nonhuman animal.

In his book “Practical Ethics” he recommends infanticide up to 2 years old as a logical extension to abortion.

by tomcam 3y ago

In his book “Practical Ethics” he recommends infanticide up to 2 years old as a logical extension to abortion.

barry-cotter 3y ago

Yes. Do you have a point to add to that? Do you feel there’s some reason he’s obviously wrong for example?

yossarian1408 3y ago
Relevant context. Singer has a lot of clout because people read some of his stuff in a first year philosophy class. For those who didn't get the memo that the man is a crazy misanthrope, him taking the idea of infanticide seriously is a pretty good indicator of what his specific grift actually is.
- burgh 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - spacechild1 3y ago
    > A 23 months old human is generally less intelligent than a dog Wow. Do you have any experience with little kids? With 23 months my daughter was drawing pictures, singing songs, laughing at my jokes, reenacting scenes from theater plays, etc.
    - barry-cotter 3y ago
      The question isn’t if 2 year olds are intelligent it’s if dogs are of comparable intelligence to a human 2 year old. They are. > As for language, the average dog can learn 165 words, including signals, and the "super dogs" (those in the top 20 percent of dog intelligence) can learn 250 words, Coren says. "The upper limit of dogs' ability to learn language is partly based on a study of a border collie named Rico who showed knowledge of 200 spoken words and demonstrated 'fast-track learning,' which scientists believed to be found only in humans and language learning apes," Coren said. > Dogs can also count up to four or five, said Coren. And they have a basic understanding of arithmetic and will notice errors in simple computations, such as 1+1=1 or 1+1=3. > Four studies he examined looked how dogs solve spatial problems by modeling human or other dogs' behavior using a barrier type problem. Through observation, Coren said, dogs can learn the location of valued items (treats), better routes in the environment (the fastest way to a favorite chair), how to operate mechanisms (such as latches and simple machines) and the meaning of words and symbolic concepts (sometimes by simply listening to people speak and watching their actions). > During play, dogs are capable of deliberately trying to deceive other dogs and people in order to get rewards, said Coren. "And they are nearly as successful in deceiving humans as humans are in deceiving dogs." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090810025241.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090810025241.h...
      - spacechild1 3y ago
        I have been replying to OP who literally said: > A 23 months old human is generally less intelligent than a dog and has a consciousness vastly different from us. If the lives of people (and everyone else) got better from killing such a being, then why not? So what is your point? Is today "rationalist edgeloard"-day?
        burgh 3y ago
        [dead]
        spacechild1 3y ago
        In fact, I do acknowledge that many things we do to animals are horrific. But this is just whataboutism. So you are really telling me that you are ok with killing little kids for "utilitarian good" (whatever that is)? You still haven't answered my question: do you have any real-life experience with little kids? I am pretty sure you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't spew such obvious bullshit. Now let's remember what you said in your original post: > Why not take infanticide seriously? A 23 months old human is generally less intelligent than a dog and has a consciousness vastly different from us. Honestly, that's one of the most fucked up things I have ever read on HN. Congratulations!
        burgh 3y ago
        I'm sure it feels like that to a loving parent, especially when you think about your own child. Your feelings are valid.
  - chasd00 3y ago
    a 23 month old human will beg for their life. Doesn't that contradict his position on killing sentient animals?
    - barry-cotter 3y ago
      Do you think dogs and pigs who are aware of what’s about to happen don’t?
      - chasd00 3y ago
        That the point, the author can’t have it both ways.
        barry-cotter 3y ago
        Peter Singer aims for consistency, for not having it both ways. If killing a being of neural structure X is moral then have the same standard for human and non-human animals. He isn’t pretending that being in or out of its mother is morally relevant. If killing a nine month old “fetus” is moral killing a 3 minute old baby is. Singer will bite all those bullets.
spacechild1 3y ago
Are you being serious? Or is this just some wicked kind of sarcasm?
- spacechild1 3y ago
  To the downvoters: do you have any experience with little kids? As a father of a 2 year old, it is pretty obvious what's wrong with infanticide...
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    Well, I am a former embryo and fetus. I was given the opportunity to be born, and so I became pro-life. That seems like a pretty obvious and logical decision.
    - spacechild1 3y ago
      Abortion of a 12 week old fetus is in no way comparable to infanticide. That's the point I am trying to make.
      - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
        What makes it different? Umbilical cord? Immersed in amniotic fluid? Roundly dehumanized and unpersoned by society?
        spacechild1 3y ago
        Do you eat meat?
        NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
        Not on Fridays, no. For many years I've offered this up as a sacrifice for my little brothers and sisters who are murdered because of a "human right". I find it personally revolting that people would assent to my own murder. I am the product of an unplanned pregnancy, and it is mere happenstance that I was not strangled, torn limb from limb, had my skull crushed, and my spine snipped apart at the nape of the neck, then carefully extracted piece by bloody piece, reassembled in a dish (to make sure that nothing was left behind to infect mom - abortions are "safe"), and dumped in a biological waste bin to be incinerated. I escaped that fate, but others do not, so I abstain from meat on every Friday of the year. I do not understand why you and all the others would not assent to my grisly murder as an infant, as a 50-year-old, or perhaps not even as a feeble and helpless 96-year-old hospital patient, but you would readily take up the speculum and scalpel just because I had an umbilical cord attached.

avgcorrection 3y ago

The “cutoff” always comes up in abortion debates, and when someone argues for a very late term abortion, the other side is sure to bring up infanticide. Polite people/amateur philosophers leave it there. Professional philosophers pick up the slack and deal with the heinous leftover questions…

tomcam 3y ago
Legislators, and therefore voters must also deal with the heinous leftover questions.

basisword 3y ago

If it’s in relation to abortion cutoff times it’s an important question to ask. I’ve never met someone with a rational answer to that question. It mostly boils down to what they personally feel comfortable with emotionally (and that’s fine, but not something you can apply in law for all people).

George83728 3y ago
> It mostly boils down to what they personally feel comfortable with emotionally (and that’s fine, but not something you can apply in law for all people). Every democratic country has laws which are motivated by the way people feel emotionally. Check out this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe#/media/File:Abortion_on_request_legality_(Eurasia_29-06-2022).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe#/media/File... 12 weeks in Germany, 24 weeks in the UK. Why is there such a difference? Because these laws are based on how people feel.
- iinnPP 3y ago
  Canada's is legal up until the fetus leaves the womb. It's also possible to kill a fetus inside the womb and suffer no consequence for said killing. https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/arianna-goberdhan-fetus-homicide-1.5122096 https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/arianna-goberdhan-fetus-homi...
  - specialist 3y ago
    That Canadian law does not cover the edge case of first-degree murder for a fetus is a hole in the rules, not permission to kill.
    - iinnPP 3y ago
      I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Do you have more recent information that shows it is now illegal to forcefully terminate the functionality of a 40-week fetus while in the womb in Canada? Calling it a hole in the rules is inaccurate. It's not a person. You can disagree if you want. My post was informational and intentionally lacking opinion.

SanderNL 3y ago

That’s so interesting. Thanks for the book recommendation.

specialist 3y ago

Ugh, that's awful. Apologies, but I could not find any recommendations for killing babies. Please clarify. Practical Ethics 3rd ed [2011], Peter Singer https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=02C20FF721FBFC562268D14EB43A438F https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=02C20FF721FBFC562268D14... Perhaps an earlier edition advocated infanticide? https://libgen.is/search.php?&req=singer+Practical+Ethics&phrase=1&view=simple&column=def&sort=year&sortmode=DESC https://libgen.is/search.php?&req=singer+Practical+Ethics&ph...

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

Seems logical. What is the problem?

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

[flagged]

tomcam 3y ago
[flagged]
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 3y ago
    We need you to stop using HN for ideological flamewar. You've been doing it a lot, and breaking the site guidelines a lot in other ways too, such as by crossing into personal attack: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36247136 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36247136 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36243998 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36243998 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36243288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36243288 and failing to edit out swipes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36195095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36195095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36195079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36195079 I don't want to ban you because I don't get an impression of malice or abuse from your comments, but we need you to review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the intended spirit of this site. Ideological battle, political battle, and flamewar are very much against that spirit. We want curious, thoughtful, substantive, respectful conversation. Please do that going forward, and refrain from posting when you can't.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      Got it. Dumb luck I saw this post, it was hidden. I didn't know anything was getting flagged. Didn't know how to see these messages. I'd say it is 50/50, some of my posts were responses in-kind, and to me, some seem more like the other person was the one with the problem, and maybe flagging is itself an attack. Definitely some gray area in interpreting these. And, there are definitely some hot button topics that get flames going everywhere, and I got in the crossfire. But, I did review the guidelines, and your history of past warnings to others. So know there is a 'two wrongs don't make a right' rule. So, I'll watch it. I'd rather keep HN as it is than fight.

RobinL 3y ago

Whether you agree with him or not, the argument is more nuanced. I believe the relevant section is page 169 of this: https://www.stafforini.com/docs/Singer%20-%20Practical%20ethics.pdf https://www.stafforini.com/docs/Singer%20-%20Practical%20eth... Some of the text is copied and pasted below, but it should be read and interpreted in context: ABORTION AND INFANTICIDE There remains one major objection to the argument I have advanced in favour of abortion. We have already seen that the strength of the conservative position lies in the difficulty liberals have in pointing to a morally significant line of demarcation between an embryo and a newborn baby. The standard liberal position needs to be able to point to some such line, because liberals usually hold that it is permissible to kill an embryo or fetus but not a baby. I have argued that the life of a fetus (and even more plainly, of an embryo) is of no greater value than the life of a nonhuman animal at a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel. etc., and that since no fetus is a person no fetus has the same claim to life as a person. Now it must be admitted that these arguments apply to the newborn baby as much as to the fetus. A week-old baby is not a rational and self-conscious being, and there are many nonhuman animals whose rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel. and so on, exceed that of a human baby a week or a month old. If the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby does not either, and the life of a newborn baby is of less value to it than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee is to the nonhuman animal.