Defender of euthanasia and infanticide, Peter Singer sees racial quotas as a way out of underdevelopment

Peter Singer is a very important philosopher for the global elite. He first became notorious with Animal Liberation (90), which is the bible of animal rights advocates and motivated the founding of PETA. If there is any politically correct moral norm, it is likely that Peter Singer has written a philosophical rationale for it. To give an idea of ​​the prestige that Singer enjoys, he has a book prefaced by Bill and Melinda Gates, namely: Famine, Affluence and Morality (2015), something like “Hunger, Plenty and Morality”. He is a critic of nation-state governments and an apologist for the then-couple’s globalist philanthropy. His most general book is probably Practical Ethics, whose first edition is 1979; the second, from 1993 and the third, more recent, from 2011. This book is famous among his detractors (in which I include myself) for being the work in which he defends infanticide and euthanasia of people with cognitive abilities inferior to those of animals. He’s been doing this since the first edition, which earned him, at first, the cancellation of lectures in Germany. At that time, infanticide and euthanasia of the disabled brought fresh memories. In 1993, he prefaced the issue by saying that he had not changed his mind about anything; the new edition was justified by bringing more clarifications and themes. The most recent, by 2011, exchanges a chapter on refugees for one on climate change. The edition I have in my hands is from the 1990s 90, purchased at second-hand bookshops. Brazilian edition of Martins Fontes de 2002. Copy taken from the library of a reputable private university, which probably only sold it because it bought the most current one.

Breaking the taboo

Singer says that his “book violates a German taboo”, because since “Hitler’s defeat, in Germany it has not been possible to openly discuss the question of euthanasia, nor the question of human life can be so miserable as to not be worth living.” Put in these terms, euthanasia is only taboo in the West for very observant religious people. It is presumed, in good faith, that the author considers that some people are very afraid of suffering death, slow and agonizing, so that they prefer euthanasia (“good death”, in Greek), to a protocol extension of life. In the public debate of recent years, the term “euthanasia” has been used with this meaning. The presumption of good faith also includes prior consent, perhaps in the form of instructions left by a person to family members as to what to do with them. However, as Germans are well aware, euthanasia need not be voluntary. In fact, Singer speaks expressly of “non-voluntary euthanasia”. And he defends. Without a doubt, Singer breaks taboos.

The fallacy of all his thinking, in my view, is condensed in the formulation “life not worth living”. I can judge that my life is not worth it. I can also judge that your life is not worth living, or that of a vegan. No valuation is 100 objective, because fact and value are different things. The objective fact is that people commit murder, for example. The moral valuation of murder is independent of this fact, and is elaborated by the subject. There is no such thing as an objectively unworthy life to be lived, because being worthy or unworthy is a moral valuation. Viktor Frankl argued that the life of an inmate in Auschwitz was worth it. Stephen Hawking, all wasted in a wheelchair and unable even to articulate his own voice, did not cry out for euthanasia and lived a full life. With Singer, everything happens as if valuation were a given in the world – and not a subjective and arbitrary formulation of it. So when he talks about euthanasia, he assumes that everyone agrees with him as to which lives are worth living and not worth living. It gives no objective criteria, and it is on purpose. As it has been 30 years since the publication of this book, it is worth pointing out that today “euthanasia” has already metamorphosed into suicide assisted, and went from being terminally ill to being merely depressed, or too ill to bear the medical costs (see “euthanasia” paid for by Canada).

Who is Singer for say that Stephen Hawking’s life is not worth living? However, if his morals had been in place longer, Hawking could have been killed as soon as he was born, or aborted, as well as any handicapped baby. He advocates “abortion and infanticide, in the case of a fetus or baby with a severe disability”. Here is his justification: “It is one thing to say that disabled people who want to live their lives to the full should be given all the help they need to do so; another thing, and quite different, is to say that, if we are able to choose for our next child whether he will start life with or without a disability, it is pure prejudice or a biased attitude that leads us to choose to have a child without a disability. disabilities” (p. 56). Everything happens as if a child were a mathematical variable, and not a being of flesh and blood. It is evident that Stephen Hawking’s parents would not want to see their son suffer so much. But it is also evident that if they had taken a DNA test that showed his sentence and aborted or killed him to have a healthy child, that child would be his brother, not him. In addition, it should be noted that from “severe disability” it was simply changed to “disability”. Now, a parent may prefer that a child be born without myopia than with myopia. Who likes to have myopia? The expression “severe disability” was there just to catch the unwary reader; the rationale is for any disability, or even the selection of traits – why have a child with an average IQ instead of a high one, or a child with floppy ears instead of without?

That’s how it is with Singer. Much sophistry with affectation of intellectual sophistication.

At least he is clear in stating his purpose: to break a “taboo” in the West and end the sacredness of human life. In his words, “comparing and, in some cases, equating the lives of human beings and animals is exactly what this book is about. . Belief in human superiority is a very fundamental belief and underpins our thinking in many sensitive areas. Challenging it is not a trivial matter, and the fact that such a challenge provokes such a strong reaction should not surprise us. However, once we understand that the violation of this taboo on the comparison between humans and animals is partially responsible for the protests, it is clear that there is no way back” (p. 3).

IQ Differences Between Races

There is no way back because Singer reveals, in this book, a new basis for a new morality and expects us to accept it, since he confuses fact with value. Once we have read his Revelation, it remains for us to convert, on pain of being considered religiously ignorant.

Following his taboo-breaking trail, Singer takes the IQ data. The polls are consistent in placing the Japanese group as superior to the white group in terms of IQ, and the white group superior to the US black group. This type of research is often stifled by moral concerns. To escape genetic determinism, Thomas Sowell points to culture as an important factor in intellectual development; he praises the diligence of the Orientals and deplores the pernicious redneck culture which, despite its Celtic origins, is today celebrated and defended by blacks in the USA. Adding to a bad culture, Sowell points to the erosion of the black family by the welfare state – which was designed by a Swedish eugenicist in order to reduce the proportion of blacks in the US.

By the way, Singer does not reject the culturalist explanation for the underdevelopment of blacks there. He also pays lip service to the fact that it is wrong to discriminate against black individuals on the basis of the black group. People who truly believe in the power of culture and individual freedom propose as solutions the provision of quality education and the reform of values. Quality school is usually peaceful. Singer, who only pays lip service to this belief in order to catch the unwary, proposes a very different solution: racial quota.

Throughout his argument, we see that he believes in the low IQ of “marginalized groups” (ie, blacks) as a natural and immutable given. School doesn’t solve! I quote: “To match the level of all schools would be difficult enough, but it is the easiest of the tasks that await a conscientious proponent of equal opportunity. Even if the schools are the same, some children will be favored by the type of home they come from.What has been said thus far [i. e., uma lista de desigualdades sociais que a escola não pode apagar] is perhaps insufficient to show the impropriety of an ideal of equality, but the fundamental objection yet to come. Even if we were to communally educate our children, as in an Israeli kibbutz, they would inherit different aptitudes and character traits, including different levels of aggression and different IQs. Eliminating differences in the child’s environment would not affect differences in genetic attributes. True, it could lessen the disparity between, say, IQ levels, since social differences at present are likely to accentuate genetic differences; but genetic differences would remain, and in most estimates they are a fundamental component of existing IQ differences. (Remember that we are not talking about individuals. We do not know whether race affects IQ, but there is little doubt that IQ differences between individuals of the same race are, in part, genetically determined.) So equality of opportunity is not an attractive ideal. It rewards the lucky ones, those who have inherited those aptitudes that allow them to develop interesting and profitable careers, and it punishes the unfortunate whose genes make it very difficult for them to achieve the same success” (p.


He gives no good reason to claim that genes are the main cause of poverty. And as racial quotas are aimed at the whole “black race” rather than individuals, they only make sense based on the presumption that the black race has inferior genes.

Singer draws a parallel between women and blacks. These, as a group, would have a lower IQ; women as a group are less aggressive. Both characteristics negatively impact wages. Based on this, Singer states that, “in the absence of concrete evidence of discrimination, it is not possible to justify affirmative action on the basis that it simply corrects existing discrimination in the community” (p.

)). That is, while a Silvio Almeida dismisses individual accusations of racism for believing in “structural racism”, Singer dismisses them for believing in low IQ. How is the reasoning of quotas then? “Within the general objective of social equality, greater representation of minorities in professions such as law and medicine is desirable for several reasons” (p. 56 ).

For Singer, blacks do not have the intellectual conditions to compete with whites. That’s why they need a quota. He talks about “minorities”, but Orientals are minorities and there is no claim of quotas for them – on the contrary, there are mechanisms to leave them out despite good grades.

This is the true face of progressivism, which calls itself anti-racist, but is eugenics, racist and despises black people from all over the world based on IQ tests of black people in the USA.

The concept of equality on which Singer is based is that of equality of interests. Both white and black men and animals have, according to Singer, interests (we will see this later). Of course, who defines these interests is Singer himself. Once there is a planner, it is easy to equate other humans with animals: they all become variables in the philosopher’s spreadsheets.


Back to top button