Philosophy Now Forum

Ethicist and animal rights advocate Peter Singer has faced public outrage over his views on infanticide and euthanasia. Richard Taylor explains why he regards Singer as the most important thinker of the present generation.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/28/The_Singer_Revolution

What is significant about this article is Singer's view on suffering.

anthropomorphic fallacy

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 12:54 am anthropomorphic fallacy

-Imp

What is?

Taylor advocated Individual Ethics while Singer advocates Social Ethics.

The two aspects (foci, persspectives) are not incompatible. We don't have to choose one over the other.

"Make something of yourself!" says Taylor. "Give something to others!" says Singer. [He goes so far personally as to tithe himself - allocate a part of his income to prescreened, sound, truly-altruistic charities.]

We need both branches of inquiry - Individual Ethics and Social Ethics - in a good Theory of Ethics.
For such a theory, see for example, https://www.amazon.com/LIVING-SUCCESSFU ... B01NBKS42C

By these days, assisted suicide and triage of extremely-deformed and abnormal infants is {in some quarters} tolerated as acceptable, much more so then when Singer wrote the book, HOW SHALL WE LIVE? -- So he is not so revolutionary any more.

Soon parents will be notified before a birth as to whether their fetus has a terrible disease, or any kind of brain damage, so they can abort the fetus before it becomes a baby. ....Technology sometimes can make life a little less stressful.

Comments?
Questions?

Singer is an asshole and a moron.

Singer is not an asshole and a moron, although he can be labeled a hypocrite, by his own admission. When Singer's mother became ill, he spent his personal money trying to help her out, as opposed to using that same money to help out the people of the world, as would be consistent with his utilitarian ethics. When confronted on his behavior, Singer admitted he was being inconsistent with his own theory.

The problem with trying to develop philosophical systems of morality is that they all too often ignore basic human biology. Humans, for the most part are wired to treat family members preferentially compared to non-relatives. This is not going to change by someone claiming these personal preferences should be set aside in the name of utilitarianism.

Morality starts in biology, although, it certainly does not end there. Nevertheless, any philosopher who overlooks this fact will most likely come up with an unworkable system.