Philosophy Now Forum

recently some philosophers wrote a paper suggesting that there is nothing wrong with post birth abortion

they are using an argument similar to singer's in 'practical ethics' arguing that babies are not persons

the problem is that this is making philosophers and anyone with an interest in the field seem like total loons and destroys the credibility of philosophy

i told the the guidance counsellor yesterday that i wanted to study philosophy after high school and she was like

philosophy? you mean like peter singer who thinks its ok to have sex with corpses and kill babies

how do you answer that

its not like singer can be easily dismissed as an obvious kook on the fringes of philosophy - he is not even if he should be

Modern environmental ethicists have nothing on the Greeks...

-Imp

what did the greek philosophers have to top singer's corpse fucking and baby killing

pederasty

-Imp

where did they actually advocate it

if i remember my plato correctly he was not in favor of sex with young boys

and i still say that baby killing and corpse fucking is worse than that anyway

I don't think you should be put off by philosophy because there are mainstream philosophers whose views you strongly disapprove of. On the contrary, if you are actually interested in philosophy and if you think these views are wrong then that would be an excellent reason to study it.

my concern is more with being taken seriously

i am not personally put off studying philosophy but how can philosophers and philosophy be taken seriously by anyone else when a prominent philosopher says that fucking corpses and killing babies is oK?

Can't see much wrong with necrophilia other than the informed consent part but where does he say that we should kill babies?

Ah! I see, he was talking about disabled babies and was being consistent with his beliefs about animals rights to live. Basically a goose for the gander argument to those who he thinks hold inconsistent moral beliefs I guess.

its fucking gross



more generally in 'practical ethics' he argues that babies are not persons and do not deserve the same moral protections that 'persons' have

so in his view babies have the moral status of fish

If you are concerned about being taken seriously then perhaps philosophy is not for you.

Or maybe just a little to serious.

No-ones advocating it as a requirement? I can see a problem with informed consent but if the person left a bequest?

Given I thought he thinks animals should have the same rights to morality we give ourselves I think this is a slight distortion. I think he's probably pointing out that to be consistent ethically and if we did assign animals such rights then if we kept killing animal babies, lambs, calfs, eggs, etc then we should apply the same principles to ourselves, as we are animals.

Although I've not read his book so I could see that if we apply morality to only those who can fight for it then babies don't deserve it.
p.s.
You need some fullstops and capitals.

He made a claim you can make another claim. Debate, discuss. Being disgusted by an idea might be warranted but if you are then why?

my point is not about singer's reasoning here

rather if academic philosophy is to be anything other than self-contained exercise then philosophers need to be taken seriously by nonphilosophers

which is difficult as i have explained

If philosophers impose on themselves the condition that they should be taken seriously by non-philosophers they are no longer doing philosophy. They would be subjecting themselves to a social convention - the very thing they are supposed to question.