Ethicist Discusses Merits of Ending Human Race


The worst thing that can happen to a body is for it to turn against itself. This is known as cancer. The worst thing that can happen to a society is for it to turn against itself. This is known as liberalism.

Liberals don’t just curl their lips at the sight of American flags. Because most Americans are Caucasians, they grant special privileges to those who aren’t. Because most Americans are Christians, they loathe Christianity. Because we speak English, they support bilingualism. Because we’re humans, they call for an end to the human race.

No, I’m not kidding. Peter Singer holds forth from atop the official soapbox of the liberal establishment, the New York Times, in a screed entitled “Should This Be the Last Generation?“:

Few of us would think it right to inflict severe suffering on an innocent child, even if that were the only way in which we could bring many other children into the world. Yet everyone will suffer to some extent, and if our species continues to reproduce, we can be sure that some future children will suffer severely. Hence continued reproduction will harm some children severely, and benefit none.

Singer’s musings are inspired by David Benatar ‘s “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence,” a nihilistic ode to human extinction that Singer calls “a fine book.”

Benatar also argues that human lives are, in general, much less good than we think they are. We spend most of our lives with unfulfilled desires, and the occasional satisfactions that are all most of us can achieve are insufficient to outweigh these prolonged negative states. If we think that this is a tolerable state of affairs it is because we are, in Benatar’s view, victims of the illusion of pollyannaism. This illusion may have evolved because it helped our ancestors survive, but it is an illusion nonetheless. If we could see our lives objectively, we would see that they are not something we should inflict on anyone.

Plus ending the human race could ease neurotic guilt over the imaginary global warming crisis, because according to leftist fantasies,

the people who will be most severely harmed by climate change have not yet been conceived. If there were to be no future generations, there would be much less for us to feel to guilty about.

The natural conclusion:

So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!

The sort of grade school sophistry that liberals trot out to excuse aborting their own children is used to justify putting an end to the entire human race out of sheer misanthropic nihilism.

Of course, it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization, but just imagine that we could. Then is there anything wrong with this scenario? Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend it, because it makes us better off — for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations — and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off.

In the end, even Singer backs off from fully endorsing Benatar’s call for an end to the human race, but he pontificates that choosing not to snuff out humanity “forces us to reconsider the deep issues,” such as:

Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?

Clearly the more sophisticated reader is expected to lean toward no, no, and no.

In addition to wanting us to doubt the value of human existence, Singer also favors extending abortion to toddlers and having sex with dogs. He is not incarcerated in an insane asylum, but rather teaches bioethics at Ivy League Princeton. Again: no, I’m not kidding.

No doubt these “moral” justifications for putting an end to human reproduction are familiar to Comrade Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren, who has suggested putting sterilants in the water supply.

Thank you Peter Singer, David Benatar, John Holdren, the NY Times, and the rest of the pointy-headed progressive intelligentsia for making it clear to anyone paying attention that although rank and file liberals may be misguided idealists, at the heart of liberal ideology lie madness, depravity, and pure evil.

peter-singer.jpg
Peter Singer: sick evil freak and expert on liberal ethics.

On a tip from Scott. Hat tip: Ace of Spades HQ. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Related Articles

6

Juan Williams Insists He Isn’t Liberal, Just a “Foil”

Juan Williams hit it off with the I-man on the July 11 broadcast of Imus in the Morning. : Apparently, Williams,

8

Jury Damage Award Could Close Calif. Healthcare Facilities

When companies are found to have violated regulations that govern their industry, is it right that a jury of non-experts

11

Calif. Dem Chair Says Romney/Ryan Like Nazi Joseph Goebbels

California Democrat Party Chairman John Burton is setting the Democrat National Convention off on the sort of demagogic footing that

52 comments

Write a comment
No Comments Yet! You can be first to comment this post!

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*