Ethicist who opposed medical care for unvaccinated wants rights for robots

An Australian moral philosopher who supported withholding medical care from those who refused the COVID-19 injections is now pushing for robot rights.

Peter Singer is an award-winning ethicist and bioethics professor at Princeton University. In 2000, he was inducted into the US Animal Rights Hall of Fame. He has authored several books, including Animal Liberation. He has spoken out against “speciesism”, in which humans are given more privilege than other species, and claims that all sentient beings deserve equal consideration.

That does not, however, include living humans in the womb. While he believes animals should be given equality to humans, Singer also believes in late-stage feticide.

In September 2021, Singer was awarded the $1 million Berggruen Prize for Philosophy & Culture, the most prestigious award in academic philosophy. 

Four months later, Singer penned an article arguing that those who refused the COVID-19 injections should be denied health care in favor of those who were vaccinated. He claimed that if the vaccines prevent hospitalization, then those who were not vaccinated — who “have made foolish, selfish choices” — were being hospitalized. By doing so, they were occupying health resources that could be used for the vaccinated:

Hospitals that are at or near capacity should warn the populations they serve that, after a certain date – far enough in the future to allow ample time for people to get fully vaccinated – they will give vaccinated patients priority over unvaccinated patients with COVID-19.

After the announced date, when both a vaccinated and an unvaccinated patient with COVID-19 need the last available bed in the intensive care unit, the vaccinated patient should get it. If the last ICU bed is given to an unvaccinated patient because at the time there was no one else who needed it, and a vaccinated patient with a greater or equal need for the facility then arrives, the bed should be reallocated to the vaccinated patient.

Frontline News reached out to Singer to ask if he would reverse his position now that the vaccinated admittedly make up the majority of COVID-19 deaths, and scientific evidence links the vaccines to a rise in cardiac events. Singer did not comment.

This month, Singer argued for artificial general intelligence (AGI) robots who become conscious to be granted rights equal to human rights.

"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," he said in an interview.

"Some day, undoubtedly, it's possible that an AI could be conscious and convince us that it's conscious. And if that's the case, then we need to take account of the AI's interests, just as we would take account of those of another sentient being."

In a show of compassion he does not afford babies in the womb, Singer said that even if there is even the possibility that a creature may feel pain, it should be granted rights.

"If they're thoughtful about it, they may say, 'Well, I think there's some doubt about it', and we ought to give the robot or AI system the benefit of the doubt'," Singer said.

"I take that kind of stance myself when people talk particularly about invertebrate animals. 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.

“I would say the same about AI.”