Peter Singer's Beliefs

This article discusses whether Pete Singer is somewhat correct or incorrect in the thought process of people having the choice to murder disabled infants for their “best interest.” The author of this article seemed bias to Peter Singer’s beliefs until the end where he argues against him. The author starts the article off by stating Peter Singer’s positions and respect received throughout his philosophy. He also mentioned the people opposed to Singer’s beliefs. Then he went into detail about Peter Singer and his ridiculous perspectives. He despises that we are “cruelly and unconscionably oppress ad misuse non-human animals by eating their flesh and experimenting with them.” He believes that everyone should be vegetarians. Ironically, he is against …show more content…
I think he is an atrocious man that has illogical beliefs that are moral, disgusting, and lacking consistency. First, Singer is against “human and non-human” discrimination and believes that everyone should be vegetarians in order to fight against the cruelty of how we treat “non-human” animals. Ironically, he believes that a 3-month old child that has some disability should be discriminated and murdered for something that they cannot control. Singer is not giving them a chance to find their own happiness. I find it very strange that he believes we should be equal to a horse, but an infant with Down Syndrome cannot be equal to a healthy one. The author wrote that Singer was a “broadminded, fair, non-discriminatory, compassionate, innovated, iconoclastic, and consistent” and it almost makes me laugh how incorrect and far-fetched these adjectives are about Peter Singer. He is not only a narrow-minded, unjust, discriminative, insensitive, and inconsistent man, but he also does not actually care about the child with the disability, instead he is more concerned with having a society of perfection and “happiness.” Euthanasia is a way for parents to escape their parental obligations to care for the child no matter how difficult it may be. Euthanasia is selfish and simple-minded. Also, a child’s happiness does not simply rely on his circumstances. Just because a child is disabled it does not mean that they are completely intolerant to any ability to grow and be happy, therefore, in an atheist’s mind, have the purpose in life. The parents are stopping a plan before it even happened by murdering an innocent person. Peter believes that we should have a choice to murder an infant; do we have a choice to kill a random stranger or a friend? If someone finds some justified reason to go and kill someone without any potential threat to their life, is it now legal? I don’t think it is. So why