Few would argue against the existence of morality. Most humans agree that certain behaviors are right while others are deemed morally wrong. Thomas C. Mayberry stated: “There is broad agreement that lying, promise breaking, killing, and so on are generally wrong” (1970, 54:113). Three years earlier, evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson observed that, although “man is the result of purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind,” nonetheless, “good and evil, right and wrong, concepts irrelevant in nature except from the human viewpoint, become real and pressing features of the whole cosmos as viewed morally because morals arise only in man” (1967, p. 346, emp. added).
The existence of morals places atheists and Darwinians in an awkward position. Not believing in a God or Supreme Being demands that morals must have arisen from naturalistic processes on Earth. Yet, matter is unable to “evolve” any moral consciousness. Thus, atheists and evolutionists must contend that man’s sense of morality came from previous generations of men. They contend that, in essence, morals exist because men determined certain behaviors to be evil or good.
But consider the conundrum of fallible men establishing an absolute standard for right and wrong. For instance, consider the moral standard that would be in place if Peter Singer were among those “men” who ultimately determined right from wrong for our society. Singer was included in the “Time 100” list of the world’s most influential people in 2005 (see “Time 100,” 2005). In addition, he has received numerous honors and awards in the field of bioethics and currently serves as the DeCamp Professor in the University Center for Human Value at Princeton. Yet this is the same man who says he would kill disabled babies if it were in the “best interest” of the family (see “‘Bioethicist’: OK to Kill...,” 2006).
Singer recently was asked a series of questions in The Independent, a widely circulated paper in the United Kingdom (see Singer, 2006). Singer was asked: “Isn’t it contradictory to ascribe human-based rights to animals? Surely it is absurd to apply a purely human concept to an animal who has no hope of ever understanding such a thing?” His response:
Not at all. Anyone who ascribes rights to babies or humans with intellectual disabilities must be willing to attribute rights to beings who can’t understand the concept. It’s the moral agents, the ones who are acting, who need to understand the concept. Those to whom we attribute rights, do not need to understand these concepts (2006).
Singer bluntly was asked: “Would you kill a disabled baby?” He coldly replied:
Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion. One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the fetus and the newborn baby (2006).
In the FAQ section of his Web site, Singer clarified: “Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living” (“Peter Singer,” 2006, emp. added). One wonders if Peter Singer “wanted to go on living” when he was an infant. One also wonders, if Mr. Singer had infant children, whether he would have a problem with someone killing them.
This is the same man who previously stated: “During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments” (see “Prof: Right...,” 2005). He continued: “By 2040, it may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct” (2005, emp. added). Thus, anyone who views human life to be precious and worthy of protection is a “hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalist.”
On his Web site, Singer was asked: “Do you really believe that a human being is no more valuable than an animal?” Singer responded, “I argued in the opening chapter of Animal Liberation that humans and animals are equal in the sense that the fact that a being is human does not mean that we should give the interests of that being preference over the similar interests of other beings. That would be speciesism, and wrong for the same reasons that racism and sexism are wrong” (“Peter Singer,” 2006). Thus, he equates placing humans above animals equal to discriminating between human races or genders.
Can you imagine a world in which individuals like Singer determine what behaviors are right and wrong? He would have us extend rights to animals, while killing off newborns. When asked if there are any absolute morals, Singer observed: “The only moral absolute is that we should do what will have the best consequence for all those affected by our actions” (Singer, 2006). In other words, everyone do what is right in their own eyes—an unmistakable recipe for social disaster.
Thankfully, another explanation exists for the origin of morals. The presence of morality in the human race is just one more proof that God exists. While Singer may want to give rights to every animal, bug, and virus particle, the Bible clearly informs us that man was given dominion over all of God’s creation (Genesis 1:26). Man—unlike animals—was made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27). Our moral system is based on a holy and immutable God (Isaiah 6:3; Malachi 3:6). Every example God has set forth, every command He has given, and everything He approves is good. Morals left in the hands of man would bring chaos, destruction, and death. Thankfully, God does not view human life in the same manner as Peter Singer.
“‘Bioethicist’: OK to Kill Babies After They’re Born” (2006), World Net Daily, September 14, [On-line], URL: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51963.
Mayberry, Thomas C. (1970), “God and Moral Authority,” The Monist, 54:113, January.
“Prof: Right to Assisted Suicide ‘Irresistible’” (2005), World Net Daily, December 3, [On-line], URL: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47719.
“Peter Singer” (2006), “Frequently Asked Questions,” Princeton University, [On-line], URL: http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html.
Simpson, George Gaylord (1967), The Meaning of Evolution (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and Company).
Singer, Peter (2006), “Peter Singer: You Ask the Questions,” The Independent, September 14, [On-line], URL: http//premium-p1uclsn4cwn2ti.uk.clickandbuy.com/premium.jsp?articleId= 1466409&cb_content_name=Peter%20Singer:%20You%20Ask%20The%20 Questions.com.
“Time 100” (2005), Time, 165:16, April 18.