Friday, 28 February 2025

BABIES, BESTIALITY AND THE MORALITY OF BAPHOMET!

I was looking for some information on the Encyclopaedia Britannica network and I spotted this section: "Ethics, philosophy. 
  • Also known as: moral philosophy:
  • Written by Peter Singer
  • Fact-checked by Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica
  • Last Updated: Feb 13, 2025 • Article History"
If you are unfamiliar with who Peter Singer is, I refer you to, in brief: 
"Peter Singer is the atheist utilitarian philosopher who is full on about animal rights,and is a committed vegetarian. He has even written serious articles informing us that there is really nothing wrong with bestiality. For this bioethicist, the golden rule seems to be this: feel free to have sex with animals as long as you don’t eat them afterwards.
And Singer has explicitly stated that the newborn have no inherent right to life, but must earn that right if they pass various tests for personhood which he has laid out. He says it is unreasonable to expect the newborn to be classified as persons, and we should not automatically assume they have some basic right to keep living.
As he notoriously wrote with Helga Kuhse in the 1985 volume, Should the Baby Live?: “We do not think new-born infants have an inherent right to life”. Or as he wrote in a July 1983 edition of Pediatrics: “Species membership in Homo-sapiens is not morally relevant. If we compare a dog or a pig to a severely defective infant, we often find the non-human to have superior capacities.”(B Meuhlenberg)

That this fellow is the Britannica's choice to write on 'Ethics' speaks volumes about how careful we need to be about researching on the internet.

No comments:

Post a Comment