A vocal proponent of abortion and euthanasia is arguing that artificial intelligence may have human rights.
Peter Singer, a professor of ethics at Princeton University, recently claimed that AI may be considered sentient and should, therefore, have something akin to human rights. The professor said:
They say, “Well, you know, do we know whether a lobster is really conscious?” and I would say, look, there is some evidence that a lobster is conscious and capable of feeling pain, and even if we’re not completely sure, we should give it the benefit of the doubt.
He explained further, “When robots become conscious, when they also — like humans and animals — become capable of suffering or of enjoying their lives, then certainly they should have rights.” (READ MORE: Will California Outsmart AI?)
When he’s not advocating for human rights for robots, Singer speaks and writes an awful lot on abortion, outright infanticide, and euthanasia: in every case, he favors those options. In his 1979 book Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favor of abortion, claiming unborn babies aren’t in fact people, as they lack rationality and self-awareness. Therefore, he proclaims, a mother’s desire to have an abortion takes precedence over the unborn baby’s right not to be killed in the womb.
A similar argument, by the way, is used to justify both infanticide and euthanasia. Newborns, Singer argues, aren’t people because they lack rationality, autonomy, and self-awareness. “[K]illing a newborn baby,” he said, “is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.” As if that argument weren’t horrifying enough, Singer also admits that life begins at conception, but argues a human life isn’t worth preserving — or even simply not actively destroying — just on the basis of it being a human life: “I don’t think that the fact that an embryo is a living human being is sufficient to show that it is wrong to kill it.”
Singer has also advocated vociferously for voluntary euthanasia, and even what he classifies as “non-voluntary” euthanasia, which is when the euthanized human being is lacking in — you guessed it — rationality, autonomy, or self-awareness.
In 2015, Singer debated Sydney’s Catholic archbishop Anthony Fisher on euthanasia. Fisher argued that legalizing euthanasia would lead to the practice becoming widespread and potentially even enforced. This would create a society where individuals are euthanized not simply on a compassionate basis but on an economic or even social basis. Singer rejected each of the archbishop’s claims, mocking the now-demonstrable notion of a “slippery slope.”
Singer is only an example (admittedly, an extreme example) of a principle operative in Western society on a broad scale: hedonistic cognitive dissonance. Particularly prevalent among leftists, hedonistic cognitive dissonance is a willingness to not only entertain but stalwartly maintain two ideals or desires which are, in principle, contradictory. Look to Singer as an example: robots may be entitled to human rights if they adequately mimic certain human adult characteristics, but unborn babies, infants, and the infirm and elderly are to be denied the most fundamental human right — the right to life — despite being human.
I call this hedonistic cognitive dissonance because the prime argument the dissonant puts forth for maintaining two fundamentally contradictory positions is almost always rooted in some kind of pleasure: it feels good.
A common example is abortion advocates who oppose the death penalty. An arguments I’ve frequently heard on the subject is, “It’s inhumane.” These people are speaking of grown men who’ve raped and murdered children. These same people, in order to continue enjoying consequence-free (that is, child-free) sex, endorse eviscerating unborn babies with scalpels and forceps, boiling them alive in saline solutions, and sucking their mangled little corpses into vacuum machines.
The same is true of those advocating both gun control and abortion. Then-Vice President Joe Biden, in the wake of a 2013 school shooting, pushed for strict gun control, saying, “If our actions result in only saving one life, then they’re worth taking.” This from the same man who has ignored the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade and used federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortion through federal services, even in states where abortion is outlawed or restricted.
While abortion is seemingly a sacrament to the Left, so-called anti-racist posturing is apparently a liturgy. During the summer of 2020, the same crowd shutting down mom-and-pop businesses and ratting on their neighbors for hosting maskless outdoor barbecues — often accompanied by that noxious mantra “Stay home, save lives,” or some variation thereof — was content to open up Walmart and Target stores, only to burn them down while rioting across the nation for 100 consecutive days.
Leftism has conditioned and indoctrinated its members into believing that virtue signaling feels good. It feels good for the guy with a crippling porn addiction to show up to a pro-abortion rally and chant about “women’s reproductive rights.” It feels good for the political party responsible for Planned Parenthood chop shops in every black neighborhood to don African garb and talk about “reparations.” And, apparently, it feels good for the guy who openly promotes infanticide to tease human rights for robots.