Read St. Paul's letter to Romans, chapter one. He says it better than I could ever do. And what he says has lasted through 2000 years of would-be philosophers, sophists and others who have fallen over themselves and tripped over "honesty". Where does one get the barometer for what is honest, out of the blue, or the even more tried and failed notion that I can simply come up with truth myself? Or do you ascribe to such a thing as truth? Peter Singer, of course, has assumed the role of God. Nothing new here.

Go back to Genesis 3:4 and read about the cunning serpent convincing Eve about becoming like God. If you say, well, that's really a myth, no serpent, just one's mind doing this, you have adequately answered along with me, that Peter Singer's "honesty" is actually self-deception. And, in the collective Judeo-Christian mindset of the Bible around which these words are encapsulated (Genesis 3:4), man's reason alone a la Descartes has ever plummeted him downwards. Judeo-Christian belief, which has forged the western world as a civilization for the past 3500 years teaches that from that time onwards our reason was weakened, and - here is the missing ingredient in the apotheosis of "reason" alone concepts - the WILL has been weakened. It succumbs to temptations of megalomania such as Peter Singer's crass arrogation of life-death magic wand powers. No honesty here.

Honesty is seen in the lives of the martyrs who have stood up for a principle of submitting to God's law of "thou shalt not kill" rather than political expediency of killing (abortion, euthanasia, the Gulag, the Holocaust). The Nuremberg trials made that clear. There was a higher law than the state law, even if the latter says it's better for the family, better for the state, better for the Reich that these people die. Those who murdered were brought to trial. However, those who refused to kill WHEN IT WAS POLITICALLY CORRECT TO DO SO in history often stood their ground courageously and died for it, knowing there was a greater Lawgiver, to whom they would be accountable (in this case fearlessly and happily). THAT is honesty, not the sham of making up one's mind about what the world should be like and taking life death powers in hand. Shame (if that word means anything at all any more) on Peter Singer.

-- Denis Wilde, Villanova University (posted 3/9, 10:42 a.m., E.S.T.)

previous response

next response

---

JOIN THE DEBATE

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name: Your title & institution: Your phone: Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.