First - to clarify blogger. All of its dozen or so readers, and readers very sorry that destroyed my blog on speed. It happened because the locals are signing appearances usually a three to one hundred and seventeen monkeys tails at once, so time and again one or another wymsknie and he swings at God's world alone. Recently cultivate outside netem rozmyślunek pleased, more so in the local club's Political Criticism than in some other contexts, though it is not so in others decidedly not. And it is not that blogging gave up that my changes her mind. On the contrary, what I hope will certify the coming weeks. What we need as a kite is a bit of rain wiency consequences. Consequences! Consequences! Consequences! - Means that I go to the "second". Because
second - today's performance is consistently thinking about the crime. The crime in a column last Jewropie tracked down in the thinking of Peter Singer jewropejski my favorite columnist (and at the head of the entire Yevropy, so hats off!) Maciej Nowicki (author, whose two notes below I had the opportunity to appreciate the quality of the work). The scrap Fri "Kill your mother," Singer going until the chips fly.
author of "Animal Liberation" was given to primarily bestiality. Here Nowicki talking on the train with Zizka, who devotes a few words cut Australian philosopher:
(...) Peter Singer argued that there is nothing wrong in bestiality - provided that the animal is not anything forced. If he really believes, let's photograph on the cover and give a politically correct leftist magazine.
This is what Zizek Nowicki had a roll on the train between Warsaw - Krakow, and on this nawijce is built next part of the essay: surely not eating animals is the first step on a slippery slope to bestiality morals and the state of complete barbarism.
Well, Singer apparently scored himself leaning to the topic, which moved from the place of mud mixed with your mover. It does not matter if what Zizek lightly (or rather a heavy paw) states (namely, that Singer says something) is or is not true. Singer actually work already fucked it's just that the topic was touched on bestiality. No matter if you stole it, whether he had stolen, it's important that he was involved in an ugly case. And since it is involved, it can no longer go after it without trzymanki. Especially it's quite well made: Singer with his "Animal Liberation" leaned very rude. With a simple and widely accepted assumptions axiological brought safely to the correctness of the conclusion that eating meat and dairy products is not beautiful nor good. It definitely hurt more than one Nowicki and Zizka, therefore the issue of "Singerowskiej" bestiality helped them regain fashion. "The guy from veganism" is both "a man of bestiality," so everything is clear and there is nothing to talk about. Singer and something could theoretically win there once, but finally scored an own goal themselves, so that the match Nowiccy and Żiżkowie won the reins, without having to head games.
Is this a mental health diagnosis Zizka / Nowicki in a dispute with Singer is true? I do not know. I know that may be true. In addition, suppose that the probability of its truth is not small. So let me think there is.
zoofilskich Now in the few words of sympathy Singer because since the time of highest unload the grenade, which is haunted by a philosopher (to Zizek / Nowicki add Gary Francione , abolitionist animal for years that is in dispute with Singer, who also juggles bestiality as an argument, and what that below the belt), and is, according to my immodest opinion, the fiasco.
In 2001, Peter Singer made book review Fri Dearest Pet Midas Dekkers. Thing, as is clear from Singer's discussion concerns the bestiality as a historical phenomenon that accompanies human culture since time immemorial, for centuries before Christianity, and certainly not extinct as a result of its creation. (Singer cites research by Alfred Kinsey 'until 1940, which showed that 8% of men and 3.5% of women have sexual contact with animals.) Despite strong pressure to maintain strict taboos about sex zoofilskich man they are a fairly large percentage. Is Singer writes about this in order to promote, encourage, promote? Not at all. What is interesting, according to him, he teaches as follows:
The Existence of sexual contact Between humans and animals, and the potency of the taboo against it, displays the Ambivalence of our relationship with animals. On the one hand, Especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition - less so in the East - in have always seen ourselves as distinct from animals, and imagined That a wide, unbridgeable gulf Separates Us From Them. Humans alone are made in the image of God. Only human beings have an immortal soul. In Genesis, God gives humans dominion over the animals. In the Renaissance idea of the Great Chain of Being, humans are halfway between the beasts and the angels. We are spiritual beings as well as physical beings. For Kant, humans have an inherent dignity that makes them ends in themselves, whereas animals are mere means to our ends. Today the language of human rights — rights that we attribute to all human beings but deny to all nonhuman animals — maintains this separation.
On the other hand there are many ways in which we cannot help behaving just as animals do — or mammals, anyway — and sex is one of the most obvious ones. We copulate, as they do. They have penises and vaginas, as we do, and the fact That the vagina of a calf can be sexually satisfying a man that shows how Similar These Organs are. The taboo on sex with animals small, as I have already Suggested, have Originated as part of a broader rejection of non-reproductive sex. But the vehemence with this prohibition Which Continues To Be Held, its persistence while other non-reproductive sexual acts have become Acceptable, Suggests That there is another powerful force at work: our desire to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals .
Next Singer makes a few remarks about the need to criminalize such forms of bestiality, which causes cruelty to animals. Recalls in this context, the view Otto Soyki, autora Beyond the Boundary of Morals :
Never widely known, and now entirely forgotten, it was a polemic directed against the prohibition of "unnatural" sex like bestiality, homosexuality, fetishism and other non-reproductive acts. Soyka saw these prohibitions as futile and misguided attempts to limit the inexhaustible variety of human sexual desire. Only bestiality, he argued, should be illegal, and even then, only in so far as it shows cruelty towards an animal. Soyka's suggestion indicates one good reason why some of the acts described in Dekkers book are clearly wrong, and should remain crimes.
No i wreszcie to, za co chyba Singer zbiera razy od swoich (Francione) i od obcych (Żiżek): "But sex with animals does not always Involve cruelty." Perhaps it is the sentence allowed Żiżkowi argue about what Singer says about the ethical status of bestiality. Inevitably by Most Popular propagator (and FANA), the logical consequence of Lacan's sentences "resulting zoofilia cruelty to animals is wrong" and "not every animal bestiality causes suffering" is the assertion "there is nothing wrong in bestiality - on condition that nothing of the animal is not forced ' . And this is perhaps the fundamental difference between Anglo-Saxon school frankofilską and inference.
The alleged justification of his bestiality Singer said in an interview follows:
I was not really Expressing an opinion on Whether human sexual contact is right or wrong, although I did point out WHERE That involves a dry contact or cruelty to the animals Suffering, it certainly ought to be as it is, a criminal offense, but I raised the question as to Whether it ought to be a criminal offense When There Is No Suffering Coercion or on the animal.
It turns out that when Singer questions, Žižek hear the answers. I have in reverse: more often so that when something Zizek says, embracing me doubts.
Okay, stop bestiality! And let's have peace Żiżku, back to Nowicki. Singer
According to him, "claimed that the belief in the superiority of man over every living thing is a myth - not least because some animals are more intelligent than babies or mentally handicapped." Will Nowicki
want to say that, according to Singer superiority of man over other animals is not supported by facts, is untrue? Well, I'll gladly be exported, where Nowicki draws about these allegations Singer. From the available sources is clear to me exactly the opposite. For example:
claim that life itself conscious beings capable of abstract thinking and planning for the future, the complex acts of communication is more valuable than the lives of creatures that do not have this capability, it is not arbitrary. (P. Singer, Animal Liberation , ed. Alichniewicz A. and A. Szczesna, ed. PIW, Warszawa 2004, p. 40)
Nowicki But maybe he wants to say only that according to Singer's go after this world -human animals, which are more intelligent than many humans. If you only want to say is that because that this conclusion does not agree?
there may yet be different and Nowicki one wants to say (according to Singer, the superiority of man over the non-human animals is a myth) and second (according to Singer, there are non-human beings more intelligent than human beings) in such a way that one gets confused and the second matter what Singer actually said and what is not said, especially confusion, one of which is known for sure: he must be krejzi! (Singer, not Nowicki, wiadomka.) It is also possible. Is also possible that the columnist simply do not understand what Singer says, no different from their own assertions Singerowskich their about fantasy. This last możebność seems the least likely. Since Nowicki Zizek understands it with Singer should not have the slightest worry, because Singer is not only writes, but thought in English, read wisely, rationally and consistently to zrzygania.
And this consistency, the rationality without moderation, it is a fundamental problem with Singer Nowicki. In connection with the diagnosis of symptoms of an overdose of rational reflection in the writings of Singer, Nowicki for the Australian colleague has some weighty observations:
Singer wants to save us from suffering, seeing it as the greatest evil. In fact, directs its mercy. Except that is not mean one thing: what yesterday seemed inconceivable to us, tomorrow will be normal. So does our brain: Do not use it to ensure that each argument lead to the end. This is done with, to save us from the world.
I do not know whether the author of "practical ethics" (if only they had the chance) would understand the wisdom that comes from połajanki Head of 'Europe'. "The brain does not serve to guide each argument to the end"?. I combine this: that something out of something that, yet nothing is clear (it is - as is clear from reading the essay Nowicki - whatever may result from anything, for example, stem from a misunderstanding of the text may be radical, because after all is laid or complaint against the philosopher.) Is that it? Whether it is called enlightened conservatism? "Like we know, like we understand, but I shudder before` the consequences of the consistent use of reason "? Is it because from time to time we use it half-heartedly, without the cost of baczenia exemption? Truly, I say Maciej Nowicki: These costs are not insignificant, because when reason sleeps demons awake and half asleep when the mind, to fabricate kociopoły:
compared him to Hitler, Bormann, and Dr. Mengele - these arguments are, of course, exaggerated
Yes. These so. Definitely.
