Peter Singer: Atheist moral philosopher and world's leading ethicist on bestiality, necrophilia and infanticide. A comment on Singer's moral justification of having sex with animals and the proven moral poverty of atheism, materialism and naturalism

The case of atheist Rebecca Watson (Skepchick), in particular, the rape threats, sexism and misogyny suffered by her coming from atheists and skeptics; Richard Dawkins' strange views on rape;  James Randi's audio soliciting sex from a young boy, and other evidences, have made me to begin a personal research project  about the connection between atheism and sexual behaviours. A new section of my blog has been created to address critically this question.

Peter Singer is a world's leading atheistic moral philosopher, who has justified on moral grounds the practique of bestiality or having SEX with animals. Just watch carefully what Singer says in this video:

Singer not only justifies bestiality, he also agrees with infanticide and necrophilia (sexual attraction to corpses). In an article by Joe Carter entitled "The Dangerous Mind of Peter Singer", published in First Things, Carter comments:

Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable... He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual)

What kind of person would defend such weird, evil and obviously immoral views? Philosopher Edward Feser comments:

I maintain that there are some views that are so evil that no one who is morally upright could possibly uphold them. To take just one, particularly disgusting, example, it is precisely because Peter Singer sincerely believes that bestiality is morally justifiable that we can know that he has a corrupt moral character. For given the correct (classical natural law) approach to morality and moral psychology, no one whose sensibilities are such that he could seriously entertain such an idea could possibly fail to be morally corrupt.

In a previous post I mentioned Singer's concession that only belief in a good God finally secures the conviction that living morally coincides with living well (actually, the "belief" in God is itself irrelevant: What is relevant is the existence or not existence of God, because the former determines a worldview based on a person and hence a worldview capable of grounding person-relative properties like moral values and responsability; while the latter, the atheistic worldview, is ultimately based on the non-personal features of the universe, which cannot ground person-relative properties, like objective moral values, as part of the fabric of reality).

In fact, in the following video Richard Dawkins is talking with Singer about the moral justification of infanticide:

The atheistic materialistic worldview makes no run for objective morality. Morality becomes a matter of subjective, personal interests or tastes, at most justified pragmatically. Consistent atheists like Singer and Dawkins realize this.

Also, new atheist and physicist Lawrence Krauss realizes this, at least regarding INCEST, which he considers to be just biologically inadequate, but "it is not clear that it is (morally) wrong":

That Singer's atheistic ethics justify the practique of infanticide or bestiality is more evidence of the moral poverty of atheism, metaphysical naturalism and materialism... a poverty that some atheists themselves consider to be a secular moral virtue.