"Utilitarian bioethics is born of the interest in that which is most useful
for society."

What an incredible phrase!  So filled with contradictions and sinister,
deadly, implications.  One example for now: couple "Utilitarian" with
"bioethics (itself an interesting conjunct)" and you alter the
permissible--mutate and mute the grounds for discussion--measure, weigh,
value, and otherwise execute people.  That is, conditioning human life as
other than to be nurtured preserved and sacred, turning sanctuary into
slaughter house.

Translation: "We" live "you" die.

Remarkable how persistent the recurrence of "genocide" by any other name,
whatever era, whatever scope of human suffering and experience shows the
tragic folly and shame of such attempts.  Have some decided train cars and
concentration camps, ethnic cleansing and bullets, are too brutal and
blatant for a modern technologically advanced "civilization?"  Do some seek
a kinder gentler quieter permissive methodology and rationale, oh brave new
world?

Pathetic and toxic the arrogance and ideology, the insularity and
selfishness, of a lapsed "elite."  That any logical progression or reduction
in their thinking and action fails collapse of its own absurdity, owes much
to the power, authority, and means vested with the powerful to wreak their
vision, death, and damage on those unfortunately targeted.

The fascination with perfection lives on in the human mind;     ever the grim,
dark, downside of Prometheus unbound.

Good to see Princeton students rallying for decency: there's hope and remedy
in motion, a worthy future generation.  Let's this old man know his good
works too live and regenerate.

Thank you, Betty, for your contribution.

ISM




------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 20:51:31 EDT
From: Betty Alfred <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Peter Singer
In a message dated 09/12/1999 7:17:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< Betty, he looks like someone who's not right in the head... A bit
eccentric, if you know what I mean...
>>
Michael, I've been keeping up with this a little since I first heard about
it. I don't suspect that the list would want to know all that I've read, but
if you or anyone might be interested, I'll be happy to send you the links I
have collected about this man and his philosophy. I recently learned that
there is a group of students at Princeton who have openly opposed his
appointment, and are calling themselves the "Princeton Students Against
Infanticide."
I wouldn't be quite as disturbed if he had not become an ivy league
commodity. It's the fact that he has garnered this much respect in academic
circles that concerns me. If I understand correctly, he advocates promotion
of certain animals to the classification or status of persons, while at the
same time advocating the declassification of infants (all infants -- not
just
those with disabilities) and people who are not self-aware. He has
established the first 28 days of disabled child's life as the time period in
which parents should be allowed to give permission for the life to be
terminated. This is not an advocacy for "mercy killing." The idea is to
give the parents a chance at better happiness. I haven't read anything that
suggests that he has concern for the child, or other people he suggests
should be "unpeopled." Some may consider this to be in the same camp with
euthanasia, but it's a different philosophy. Whether we support the idea of
euthanasia or not, the general consensus seems to be that -- one side or the
other -- we are trying to think in the best interest of the people who would
be at the business end of the needle, or other instrument that would end
their life. Utilitarian bioethics is born of the interest in that which is
most useful for society.
If you would like more information, let me know.
Betty