[dvt]

You sound dismissive and petulant. Objective moral truths have to be real (or at least tractable if you're, e.g., a utilitarian) unless you're willing to make some very dubious concessions, such as: it's not morally and objectively wrong to hurt someone for no good reason.

Of course, some DO make such concessions (Singer being one of them), but I think that's just throwing the baby with the bath water.

[alexvr]

It's NOT objectively wrong to hurt people on a whim! I concede this very easily. It's not dubious whatever. It might be illegal or make you unhappy, but please let me know why this is objectively wrong. Do you think "wrong" is more than a little human symbol referring to a little human opinion? How does hurting someone violate nature? How is it a problem? Are there invisible arrows that point to "bad" things? Do you actually think pain is a fundamental problem? What's "dubious" is thinking there's such thing as an objective "bad" out there somewhere. Go find it and take a picture. Measure it and please document it for the human scientific enterprise because it would be a fascinating (but very disturbing) discovery! I'm not trying to be mean here - I just want more people to realize this. Our society is brainwashed. Nothing matters whatsoever outside of pure opinion, as far as we know. Wake up, people.

[aaron695]

> Singer being one of them

Example??

[dvt]

Singer, to defend (late-term) abortion, argues that infants aren't "people", as personhood is a function of quality of life. A baby or toddler, for example has very little quality of life compared to a full-grown adult [1][2].

This is a pretty unintuitive position (and imo wrong), but at least the man takes it to its logical conclusion, so, you know.. respect.

[1] http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm

[2] https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/just-being-human-doesnt...

[aaron695]

But the reason, to my understanding, why this is important is the cost to bring up a baby that's born with severe mental issues is a lot of money.

Human lives have a cost, it varies a bit on how you measure it, but around $1 million in western countries.

So if the cost to bring up this child is more, you are effectively killing someone.

So by stopping the creation of this costly life society is better off and lives are saved.

Certainly the concept a baby suddenly becomes a life just after being born is very flawed.

So Singer doesn't take the side you believe because he believes life don't exist at that point. He is not arguing for just killing someone.

If you scientifically prove a baby is a person he will change his opinion immediately.