Infanticide Advocate Peter Singer is Awarded Australis’s Highest Civic Award

Princeton University’s Professor of Ethics Peter Singer has been appointment as a Companion of the Order of Australia (he is a native Australian). I will not mince words on this one. This is a new low for the government of Australia. Here are some of the things Singer has advocated:

He is best known for ethically endorsing infanticide. According to Singer, people are not human persons unless they can do certain things. This is called functionalism, and it leads people to regard certain human beings as being in a class of “human non-persons.” For example, Singer does not think humans reach “full moral status” until after the age of two. He supports non-voluntary euthanasia of human “non-persons” fo0r any reason. Not liking the color of their eyes, they cry too much. they pooped on your carpet, they threw up on your nice clothes, they are a girl and not a boy. Mind you, this is the same chap who gets all choked up about the use of animals in research because is multiples animal suffering. Instead of appealing to the more noble aspects of human nature, where we exercise those properties that make us truly human (compassion, defending the weak and defenseless), Singer would have us eat our young the way brute beasts do. Furthermore, he would commend us for it. We used to demarcate between barbaric societies and civilizations that did such things. Now we have become the barbarians, but according to Singer, that’s just fine.

In keeping with this disgusting, misanthropic philosophy, Singer supports using cognitively disabled human beings in medical experiments instead of animals. The laboratory animals, you see, have a higher “quality of life” according to Singer. How does he know that? Well they can do more. They can walk, groom themselves, feed themselves, and defecate without anyone’s help. The mentally disabled person it still essentially a person, but Singer doesn’t let that get in the way. People who cannot do are not people any more. They might even be trapped inside a body that no longer works, but Singer does not let that get in the way either. As far as he is concerned, person is as person does. He forgets that must BE something to eventually DO something. He has gotten the cart before the horse and we have abortion on demand, euthanasia in Holland and Brazil as the result of it.

Singer has also defended bestiality. These are, according the Singer, “mutually satisfying activities” between humans and animals should not be opposed. Now, pray tell, how does Singer know that the animal is enjoying it? Is he also Dr. Doolittle and can talk to the animals? This is disgusting. We used to think such people were sick in the head (not to mention to horrific sexually transmitted diseases you can get from such activities), but Singer thinks they are just alright.

Singer started the “Great Ape Project.” This project would establish a “community of equals” among humans, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, and orangutans. The day one of those creatures asks me for admission to such a project, I will think about it, but for now, they are too busy killing each other in the wild and spreading their feces all over each other to care about it.

Singer has also questioned whether “the continuance of our species is justifiable.” Do we need any more evidence of his own self-loathing?

Finally, Singer believes “speciesism” — viewing humans as having greater value than animals — is akin to racism. Oh, just between you and me, racism is a HUMAN concept. Bringing animals into it is a category mistake of the first degree. Humans are exceptional among the creatures of the earth. We and we alone are the stewards of the earth and its resources. The animals don’t give a rip about such things and it is not even on their cognitive radar. Human exceptionalism is the basis of human law, human rights, and everything from property values, antislavery movements, anti-genocide activities and so on. Without human exceptionalism, we become no better than the animals.

Singer’s philosophy is perverted. It takes what is profane, disgusting and devilish, and calls it morally upright. It is the result of misanthropy and self-loathing and he wants use to hate ourselves as much as he hates himself. His philosophy produces a society that is unworkable and objectionable in every way. He should not be rewarded, but derided.

Published by


Professor of Biochemistry at Spring Arbor University (SAU) in Spring Arbor, MI. Have been at SAU since 1999. Author of The Stem Cell Epistles. Before that I was a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, PA (1997-1999), and Sussex University, Falmer, UK (1994-1997). I studied Cell and Developmental Biology at UC Irvine (PhD 1994), and Microbiology at UC Davis (MA 1986, BS 1984).