Peter Singer?

[mcflynn]

Studying him in school he is very controversial. Does anyone believe he has the "most dangerous mind in the world?" Some of his views i can see where he is coming from, but others i am like what the fuck is he on! Anyone read any of his books, some of his books are an interesting read.

[Flying Pig]

Who is he? Sorry for being thick.:|

[Strontium]

He's a truly brilliant mind. His most famous contribution is probably the idea of speciesism - the idea that we assign different rights to other creatures purely based on the fact that they are members of another species. In this sense, discriminating against animals is similar to racism, sexism or fascism - this idea is the cornerstone of the animal rights movement.

[mcflynn]

He's a truly brilliant mind. His most famous contribution is probably the idea of speciesism - the idea that we assign different rights to other creatures purely based on the fact that they are members of another species. In this sense, discriminating against animals is similar to racism, sexism or fascism - this idea is the cornerstone of the animal rights movement.

 

I was pretty sure that was Tom Regan - what do i know.

 

Do you not find it weird the way Singer has never hidden the fact that he believes that neither humans nor animals have rights. For Singer, rights are actually immoral since they act as breaks to utilitarian aggregation. He's also never hidden the fact that he believes it's acceptable to painlessly kill and eat nonself aware animals. To me he contradicts himself a few times too many.

[bobhorse]

is that Ronalds brother

[Strontium]

I Do you not find it weird the way Singer has never hidden the fact that he believes that neither humans nor animals have rights. For Singer, rights are actually immoral since they act as breaks to utilitarian aggregation.

Is that specifically what he said? Are you sure you're not oversimplifying it? :dunno:

 

He's also never hidden the fact that he believes it's acceptable to painlessly kill and eat nonself aware animals. To me he contradicts himself a few times too many.

From what I have read of him, his opinions seem fairly congruous.

[mcflynn]

Is that specifically what he said? Are you sure you're not oversimplifying it? :dunno:

 

 

From what I have read of him, his opinions seem fairly congruous.

 

 

Don't get me wrong i think he is a fantastic philosopher. However when it comes to animal rights, i don't have much time for him, even though he is probably best known for his book "Animal Liberation". My reason for this is simply because of his utilitarian perspective. However some of his insights into medical ethics are superb. Yet again when he says stuff like :"it is ethical that a child suffering from Down's syndrome...should not survive" I wonder how a man so intelligent could be so barbaric.

[Joeys Pogo]

Who is he? Sorry for being thick.:|

 

Something to do with sewing machines I think

[King Emlyn]

I was pretty sure that was Tom Regan - what do i know.

 

Do you not find it weird the way Singer has never hidden the fact that he believes that neither humans nor animals have rights. For Singer, rights are actually immoral since they act as breaks to utilitarian aggregation. He's also never hidden the fact that he believes it's acceptable to painlessly kill and eat nonself aware animals. To me he contradicts himself a few times too many.

Sounds like a dickhead to me.

[Strontium]

Yet again when he says stuff like :"it is ethical that a child suffering from Down's syndrome...should not survive" I wonder how a man so intelligent could be so barbaric.

Okay, it's like this. Singer is arguing that euthanising the child is justified if the suffering of the parents in having to raise the child, and the suffering of the child in having to live with a severe disability, is greater than the suffering of the child in being euthanised.

 

Is that barbaric? I don't know. I guess it depends on whether you think it morally acceptable to spend thousands of pounds raising severely disabled children when otherwise healthy people are dying in some parts of the world for want of a fraction of that amount.

[King Emlyn]

Okay, it's like this. Singer is arguing that euthanising the child is justified if the suffering of the parents in having to raise the child, and the suffering of the child in having to live with a severe disability, is greater than the suffering of the child in being euthanised.

 

Is that barbaric? I don't know. I guess it depends on whether you think it morally acceptable to spend thousands of pounds raising severely disabled children when otherwise healthy people are dying in some parts of the world for want of a fraction of that amount.

 

I thought euthanasia involved a considered choice by the person involved, is a downs syndrome child capable of this? I'm no expert but that sounds suspiciously like Murder to me.

 

Is that Barbaric?.............Yup

[mcflynn]

Okay, it's like this. Singer is arguing that euthanising the child is justified if the suffering of the parents in having to raise the child, and the suffering of the child in having to live with a severe disability, is greater than the suffering of the child in being euthanised.

 

Is that barbaric? I don't know. I guess it depends on whether you think it morally acceptable to spend thousands of pounds raising severely disabled children when otherwise healthy people are dying in some parts of the world for want of a fraction of that amount.

 

 

 

In my opinion condoning killing of any kind puts society on a slippery slope; by deciding that some people's lives are simply too miserable and hopeless to live. Could this not be seen as we are devaluing the lives of all people?

And to many people, the notion of equating babies with chimps or dogs in my opinion is just plain loony.

[mcflynn]

I thought euthanasia involved a considered choice by the person involved, is a downs syndrome child capable of this? I'm no expert but that sounds suspiciously like Murder to me.

 

Is that Barbaric?.............Yup

 

 

Singer's view is that though if the the disabled child has no self - concious worth. Then if the Parents or in some cases Doctors feel it is right to end its life then it is justified.

[Strontium]

I thought euthanasia involved a considered choice by the person involved, is a downs syndrome child capable of this? I'm no expert but that sounds suspiciously like Murder to me.

 

Is that Barbaric?.............Yup

Then by extrapolation, killing animals is barbaric too, since they have more self-awareness than a severely disabled child. But this practice continues.

 

Singer is no barbarian by the way. He gives quarter of his income to aid charities, because he reasons it will benefit other people more than him. And at the end of the day, he's not saying we should kill disabled babies, just that to do so would be consistent with all the ethical considerations.

[King Emlyn]

Then by extrapolation, killing animals is barbaric too, since they have more self-awareness than a severely disabled child. But this practice continues.

 

Singer is no barbarian by the way. He gives quarter of his income to aid charities, because he reasons it will benefit other people more than him. And at the end of the day, he's not saying we should kill disabled babies, just that to do so would be consistent with all the ethical considerations.

To my mind there is simply no argument that equates animals with children in any circumstances whatsoever............but maybe that's just me.

[theghost]

Okay, it's like this. Singer is arguing that euthanising the child is justified if the suffering of the parents in having to raise the child, and the suffering of the child in having to live with a severe disability, is greater than the suffering of the child in being euthanised.

 

Is that barbaric? I don't know. I guess it depends on whether you think it morally acceptable to spend thousands of pounds raising severely disabled children when otherwise healthy people are dying in some parts of the world for want of a fraction of that amount.

 

No. I don't think so. I think Mr. Darwin would agree. I think in a future of rampant overpopulation, you will see this happening more and more.

[Strontium]

To my mind there is simply no argument that equates animals with children in any circumstances whatsoever............but maybe that's just me.

I don't think it's just you, I think it's the way we've all been conditioned to value a human life over the life of other creatures, even in circumstances where a human life patently has little value and an animal life clearly does.

 

I mean, it's like that parrot that was on the news the other day, the one that actually communicates with people and even invents his own words. Even though he's as intelligent as a human child, there's no law to stop you killing him. There's a clear double standard there that values non-human intelligence at a much lower level than human intelligence. Singer would argue that species is irrelevant, and it is the intelligence that counts, human or not.

[King Emlyn]

Can't agree i'm afraid, i remember a good friend many years ago came across a cat that had been horribly maimed in a traffic accident, it was in agony and beyond help. He clubbed it to death to put it out of it's misery. I think that was the brave and moral thing to do. These rules (quite rightly) would not apply if it was a child, the point being that you simply cannot equate the two because the two are not the same, and never will be,no matter what argument you put forward.

[Strontium]

I can't help feeling you're missing the point really.

[Roast Beef]

I don't mind Singer, even if I don't agree with most of his analysis, but the whole 'most dangerous mind on the planet' stuff is ridiculous hyperbole. It's some bored journalist trying to squash celebrity culture on top of the academic world, and it's all a bit silly. That's obviously not Singer's fault, but as an ethicist, I find him a little bit narrow and not actually that interesting.

[mcflynn]

I don't mind Singer, even if I don't agree with most of his analysis, but the whole 'most dangerous mind on the planet' stuff is ridiculous hyperbole. It's some bored journalist trying to squash celebrity culture on top of the academic world, and it's all a bit silly. That's obviously not Singer's fault, but as an ethicist, I find him a little bit narrow and not actually that interesting.

 

 

I agree

[Josef Svejk]

Is this the first discussion of a philosopher on the GF? I wonder what Peter Singer thinks about ass to mouth?

 

Seriously, though, whether you agree with Singer or not (that is to say, whether you're as radical in your utilitarianism as he is), there's much to be said for his intellectual engagement.

 

Most academic philosophers put their professional well being first: they want to publish uncontroversial papers in reputable journals that no one reads and get prestigious jobs in conservative universities that middle class white kids attend. At least Singer has something of interest to say to the wider public. If he's controversial, it's because - unlike many philosophers - he takes his principles very seriously and doesn't abandon them in the face of political correctness.

 

As an academic philosopher myself (shame!), I admire him hugely, though I often disagree with him.

 

Plenty of his writings can be found at http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/

[Dirk]

How does utilitarianism marry with Mill's ideas in On Liberty? Or how did Mill marry his previously utilitarian ideals with his ideas in On Liberty? I'm not being a sceptic here, I'm just wondering how the notions of the rights of the individual holding highest precedence, and the idea that the greatest good for the greatest amount of people takes precedence, can be brought together. The two concepts seem to be at odds.

[Josef Svejk]

Good question. No easy answer. Philosophers still struggle with it.

 

I would suggest that you bear in mind the difference (and perhaps the tension) between moral philosophy and political philosophy. Mill's moral philosophy is one of utilitarianism, his political philosophy one of liberalism. There's no reason to suppose that he thought, while developing both, that he was providing answers that would match up conveniently. If you start with different questions, you might well come up with answers that sit uneasily alongside each other. That doesn't make the answers wrong. It simply makes the attempt to formulate a systematic philosophy, in which everything fits together comfortably, difficult. And I don't think Mill was trying to create any kind of philosophical system. Consequently, pluralist followers of Mill would maintain that we are forced to choose between values that are, in principle, of equal standing. Sometimes the claims of utility trump those of individual freedom, sometimes the other way round. Singer, however, is more extreme in his utilitarianism than Mill; for him, the principle of utility (almost?) always prevails.

 

For what it's worth, I think it's possible to be a libertarian utilitarian. (See William Godwin's Enquiry concerning Political Justice, my favourite work of utilitarianism.) That is to say, I think it's possible to be committed to individual freedom and social "happiness" simultaneously. But it's philosophically problematic - and philosophically unfashionable...