…
Singer writes, “My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others.” Singer argues that even pigs, chickens, and fish have more signs of consciousness and rationality—and, consequently, a greater claim to rights—than do fetuses, newborn infants, and people with mental disabilities. “Rats are indisputably more aware of their surroundings, and more able to respond in purposeful and complex ways to things they like or dislike, than a fetus at 10- or even 32-weeks gestation. … The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy.”
Some people consider Singer a provocateur who says outrageous things just to get attention. But Singer is deadly serious about his views and—as emerged in our debate—has a consistent rational basis for his controversial positions.
To understand Singer, it’s helpful to contrast him with “New Atheists” like Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins. The New Atheists say we can get rid of God but preserve morality. They insist that no one needs God in order to be good; atheists can act no less virtuously than Christians. (And indeed, some atheists do put Christians to shame.) Even while repudiating the Christian God, Dawkins has publicly called himself a “cultural Christian.”
…
Dinesh D’Souza in Christianity Today, on the intellectual honesty of bioethicist Peter Singer.
Dinesh D’Souza calls Singer an “intellectually honest atheist” because he’s an example of what D’Souza fantasizes about regarding what the world would be like without religion, disregarding the fact that many atheists are humanists, rather than ivory tower utilitarian philosophy professors. Other atheists are cultural ethicists, objectivists, rationalists, and so forth; the philosophies differ by individual. The most honest thing to say would be that ridding the world of religion will not rid the world of conflict. I argue that uncompromising ideology combined with agression is the most major problem, and it is not exclusive to Christians, by any means. In any case, D’Souza uses Singer as an example to fit his stereotype of the morally bankrupt atheist. Of course, he quote-mines Singer’s work and ignores most of what Singer has to say on moral issues.
D’Souza ignores research on empathy and altruism, both of which are instinct in humans.
Greg: I didn’t get the impression that D’Sousa was calling atheists morally bankrupt, but rather was debating the source of morality. D’Souza goes on in his article to discuss what he considers two of the central principles of Western civilization: “All men are created equal” and “Human life is precious,” which he says form the basis of many of our values. Nietzsche credited Christianity with those ideas. Clearly Singer rejects those principles. Obviously many (most?) atheists would disagree with Singer on this issue, but I’m not sure they have a convincing reason, apart from old Christian habits. How many post-Christian generations will those memories survive? I guess time will tell.