Anglican Samizdat

April 16, 2010

Richard Dawkins’ morality

Filed under: Richard Dawkins — David Jenkins @ 5:58 pm
Tags: ,

Is Richard Dawkins trying to protect children in his current efforts to arrest the Pope? Probably not; in this talk with Peter Singer, Dawkins declares that, in the right circumstances, he favours infanticide:

In another section he nods happily as Peter Singer expresses his approval of eating human roadkill – as long as the unfortunate’s relatives agree:

For those who might complain that I have extracted these comments and placed them out of context, go here to subject yourself to the whole bizarre exchange.

Dawkins’ rather primitive concept of morality seems to hinge on a few assumptions: suffering is bad; humans are mere animals. Consequently, depending on the degree of sentience of the animal, killing animals can be as bad as killing humans; animal suffering can be as bad as human suffering; killing someone – including a child – to end their suffering is good; cannibalism is equivalent to eating animals.

This is the man who is attempting to assert himself as a moral authority over the Catholic Church.



  1. Remember boys and girls, if you can make your opponent seem like a villain, you can justify anything…including the protection of child rapists.

    Comment by morsec0de — April 16, 2010 @ 10:11 pm

  2. Singer is advocating the murder of “defective” children up to toddlerhood. Are you justifying that?

    Comment by Kate — April 17, 2010 @ 10:25 am

  3. I’m not justifying anything. Merely pointing out that the Catholic church is institutionalizing the protection of child rapists. And it doesn’t particularly matter to me who is pointing it out.

    Comment by morsec0de — April 17, 2010 @ 12:33 pm

  4. So, your comment 1 was directed at whom?

    Comment by Kate — April 17, 2010 @ 12:38 pm

  5. And what, in the opinion of Dawkins, or Singer, or Hitchens could possibly be wrong with sexual abuse of children? It’s just a matter of one evolved animal having its way with another.

    Comment by John K — April 17, 2010 @ 10:54 pm

  6. Just watched the whole thing. How can anyone see this as anything other than a pathetic joke? They are blind men who think that reality is the fantasy they see projected on the inside of their own eyelids. They talk of logical consistency. Logical consistency based on wrong premises is one thing, but they follow false premises with leaps of head-shakingly faulty logic and pat themselves on their backs for their brilliance.

    Comment by John K — April 19, 2010 @ 1:01 am

  7. It was about time that the dreadful “ethics” and “morality” of these awful “Humanists” was fully exposed – well done, good article, more like this needed.

    Comment by John Thomas — April 19, 2010 @ 4:47 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: