The Singer Revolution

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

The Singer Revolution

Post by Philosophy Now » Wed May 17, 2017 7:14 pm

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

tbieter
Posts: 1145
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: The Singer Revolution

Post by tbieter » Wed May 17, 2017 7:17 pm

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

Impenitent
Posts: 1564
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The Singer Revolution

Post by Impenitent » Thu May 18, 2017 12:54 am

anthropomorphic fallacy

-Imp

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 5807
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The Singer Revolution

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Thu May 18, 2017 1:12 am

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

-Imp
What is?

prof
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: The Singer Revolution

Post by prof » Mon Jun 05, 2017 5:04 am

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?

Melchior
Posts: 851
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: The Singer Revolution

Post by Melchior » Sun Jun 11, 2017 3:18 am

Singer is an asshole and a moron.

Science Fan
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: The Singer Revolution

Post by Science Fan » Sun Jun 11, 2017 5:36 pm

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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests