主播大秀

Does anyone else share my horror at the fact that it's become notable and exceptional when someone actually "pursues an idea to its logical conclusion"? Does anyone else think it terribly regretful that we've become a culture where unpalatability is seen as relevant to questions of ethics or morality, or that so much of our discourse has become merely an exercise in social ecumenicalism?

I treasure the quality of unbridled rationality wherever I see it, logic irrespective of emotion, regardless of 'intuition' and dismissive of unreasonable sentiment. Rare as that is, it's definitely to be found in the mind of Peter Singer. I disagree vehemently with many of his conclusions, but that's irrelevant. Singer is brilliant, and certainly agrees with me that 'intuition' is a relevant concern of ethics, as he argues in the peice featured in today's Guardian .

The ultimate secularist, Dr Doolittle in reverse, the animals may talk to him but not that which is human as his views on killing babies demonstrated. He's a sad case. Excellent interview William, you gave him enough rope to hang himself, He may be clear thinking, so was Hitler.

PS. Did you invite him out for a nice steak after the interview?

David Vance's reference to Peter Singer as a 'sad case' is the worst kind of argument ad homimen and his comparison with Hitler is appalling in view of the fact that Singer's parents were Viennese Jews who escaped the German annexation of Austria and fled to Australia in 1938.
Singer was asking us to question our moral assumptions and prejudices on issues as wide as animal rights, infanticide, world poverty, paedophilia and even bestiality. The response that something is 鈥榡ust plain wrong鈥� is not sufficient for Singer. We must think through the issues and develop our reasons for the moral positions which we adopt. In fact, what Singer was saying is nothing more than common sense, but sometimes it is not as common as it ought to be, as David Vance sadly proves.

Until tonight, I never heard of this guy....and I only live half an hour from Princeton. Of all the people in the world I am inherently suspicious of before I even meet them...preachers, politicians, investment counselors, bankers, cab drivers, I am most suspicious of philosophers. When someone tells you; "Why do we study philosophy? Because the unexamined life is not worth living" only one thing goes off in my head, this guy's out to make a buck. Pay money to take my course or you might as well be dead. I saw Singer on PBS's Nightly News (infinitely superior to anything 主播大秀 airs) and I decided he's just another kook. Well he sold a lot of people including those who beg to pay him money to lecture at their universities and I'm sure he must have written a lot of books and given a lot of lectures. He's got the answer to every problem in life, from the war in Iraq to how to get along with your mother-in-law (share the whiskey, the old bat will mellow out and even if she doesn't you won't care.) "Oh Mr. Singer, would you kindly autograph your book for me, you have no idea how much it would mean to my crippled daughter who lives only to read your wisdom." Two days later, she's having her treasure appraised by some antique dealer and is horrified to find out it's worthless because there are ten million more he autographed just like them. Pleeeeze, in a world of commercial overload, what does this guy have to offer that a thousand just like him didn't scam first? The only thing you learn when you take a course with a philosopher and examine life...is that you are no better off than you were before and about a thousand dollars poorer.

So Mark, you'd never heard of singer till tonight, yet you confidently assert that he has some type of scam artist. Yes he is employed to write and talk about philosophy, but the assumption that he is in this field of work for some kind of dubious financial gain is frankly ridiculous.
As William says in his blog 鈥� Singer is on of the clearest thinkers he has ever met. And he wasn鈥檛 trying to give him 鈥渆nough rope to hang himself鈥�. It was an informed debate on both sides about what informs our ethical position. His work covers some difficult areas, but following ideas to their logical conclusions is a worthwhile philosophical exercise even if it doesn鈥檛 provide us with all the answers.

I can just hear his mother now when he broke the news to her of his life's work; "Are you crazy? From dis you're gonna make a livink? Vye can't you get a regala job like everyvone else. Look at your cousin Oivink, he's making a good livink woiking for his father the bucher."

Had he really thought life through clearly to the end, he'd have become an accountant or a stockbroker and been much richer for it. What's the matter, living well didn't fit in with his philosophy of life? See, I told you it was a scam.

Here's a philosophy of life about thinking things through to the end from someone who learned the hard way, went to the school of the streets, a cokney;

"Life's what 'appens to ya while you're makin' your plans."

So much for thinking it through to the end. Most people are just lucky if they can plan for the day ahead when they get up in the moring. They take life one day at a time.

Anyway, if I had to pick a philosopher to live my life by, it would be.....Rumpole of the Bailey. Now there's a man who makes sense.

Once you see the dodgy utilitarian foundations of Singer's ethics its not terribly difficult to avoid many of his conclusions.

For anyone interested there was a critique of Singer in the latest edition of Philosophy Now - I recommend it to anyone interested in ethics generally and Singer in particular.

No doubt he's a great thinker and his ethics are certainly rigourous. But he's wrong on many issues nonetheless.

SG

well done 主播大秀.

I am sure most of your licence payers are pleased to be giving a platform to a man that commends sex between humans and animals.

PB

ps William

As you are an ethical advisor to a hosptial trust does your sympathetic hearintg mean you promote his views in that context?

PB

ummmm.....

This thread is insane. The discipline of philosophy is under attack now? What next? Two plus two equals five? I don't have to agree with Singer to appreciate his mind and to acknowledge the brilliance of what he has contributed to contemporary ethics. What Mark said is nuts.

Jim Wright #12
"The discipline of philosophy is under attack now?"

Isn't it about time it was? Really. It's gotten a free ride for thousands of years because nobody dared challenge it. Somehow if you did, you risked being called a Philistine. I'm willing to take that chance. I say the emperor is naked and everyone who has genuflected to this idol has been had for a fool. Think of any activity a human being can conceivably perform and there is a philosopher with ardent followers somewhere who will expound to you in the most contorted way possible why it is not only justifiable but admirable. How many of them are there out there? New ones are being created faster than you can keep track of them, all they have to do is hang up their shingle in front of their house and they're in business. To paraphrase them at the risk of repeating myself "Why do we study philosophy? Because to not do so, to not take my course, to not buy my book, to not pay my freight is to be condemned by me and all other philosophers and educated people as an ignorant foolish arse who wasted his life for nothing." As I said in my first posting, I don't trust these people. Those who have really followed their teachings usually ended up starting wars of one kind or another.

Here's my philosophy; neither a follower nor a leader be :-)

re 12
I agree John - even those here denigrating philosophy don't seem to realise that are exercising philosophical arguments - never mind how trivial and stupid their arguments may be.
alan

Singer...he never applied his own ethics to the case of his own mother when she got sick.

Pete

Holy hell I agree with Alan...

Are there pigs flying outside?

SG

I don't understand how readers here are able to reject Singer so casually. He's a superb thinker and philosopher. I agreed with everything he argued in his interview with Will. Well done to the 主播大秀 for screening such an intelligent programme. In Northern Ireland of all places! Better than anything I've seen with him in England.

How else would someone propose to distinguish between moral actions than by the consequences those actions produce?

Folks:

Mark must have had a bad day! Here is something to lighten his mood.

Re Post #8

Mark Coffey writes in the article...

Begin quote

He shakes Christians up with bracing criticisms of their historical track record in animal welfare, care of the environment, and the needs of the poorest of the poor. In an interview with Third Way Magazine he commented that, 鈥淚n terms of ethical foundations, Christians are all over the place... you can鈥檛 find anything about genetic engineering in Scripture鈥� and things that you do find in Scripture, like the idea that it鈥檚 extremely difficult for a rich person to go to heaven, Christians ignore.鈥� He chastises the myopia of right-wing Christianity in America and Bush鈥檚 Christian rhetoric that doesn鈥檛 square with his environmental policies or miserly 0.15% commitment to the UN Aid programme. Having enjoyed privilege in the Christianized world for generations, he urges Christians to put their religious beliefs to one side and instead discuss on the basis of 鈥榩ublic reason鈥�, as befits their place in a modern secular democracy. To this extent he鈥檚 willing to listen to religious thinkers (up to a point), because although ethics is logically prior to religion (as Plato鈥檚 Euthyphro dilemma establishes), nonetheless, 鈥淩eligious traditions often have long histories of dealing with ethical dilemmas, and the accumulation of wisdom and experience that they represent can give us valuable insight into particular problems.鈥� (Bioethics, An Anthology) On a personal level, with openness and goodwill towards others Singer engages in a constructive spirit of co-operation. He shows a willingness to understand the positions of those with whom he disagrees, including those from religious traditions who are willing to set aside the confessional premises of their arguments and speak in terms of public reason.

Singer鈥檚 treatment of Biblical texts regularly reveals a willfully wooden literalism (e.g. taking the flood of Genesis 11, and Jesus鈥� sending of the Gadarene Swine into the sea as licensing the flooding of river valleys and exploitation of animals to mans own ends). His deliberate use of quotations from the Authorised Version of the Bible reinforces his desire to paint them as archaic relics from a remote past. He makes no serious attempt to explain the weaknesses of the Judeo-Christian tradition on anything but his own terms. However, to his credit, Singer is aware that some Christians have emphasised the stewardship rather than the dominion dimensions of Genesis, and he does appear to have encountered articulate religious thinkers in both Christian and Buddhist traditions worth listening to (even more so since moving to Princeton), although he generally confines them to the reference section of his books.

End quote

Regards,
Michael

The difficulty for Singer, and negative consequentialism, is the justification of ethics based on the prevention of pain and suffering. Perhaps he has answered this, or maybe it has been answered elsewhere, but why is causing pain and suffering wrong?

Further, if he is granted the premise, how may one know which actions cause pain, and which action causes the most pain?

Can such judgements be approximated or should they be meticulously worked out?

Are actions right or wrong immediately or should they be progressively judged ? When do people cease to be responsible for the consequences of a single action?

Apparently this is common sense, a system for everyday. Truly 鈥榝olly is set in great dignity鈥�.

Andrew- I think you're asking the right questions. Singer would argue a form of utilitarianism, and you're right to question that principle; it's his weakest link, as far as I can see.

Mark and Christian Hippy- Philosophy is the study of thought, and therefore the study of logic. Unless you are planning to conduct yourselves without reference to logic or reason, philosophy is not only a relevant discipline to your life, but perhaps the most relevant discipline. The matter of ethics belongs solely to the discipline of philosophy, and therefore any arguments you make or any of the arguments of other people that you critique with regard to how it is right to conduct a human life are part of a philosophical discussion. We all engage in philosophy: some of us just do it more systematically and therefore more effectively, like Singer. Unless you can refute Singer then you have no grounds to dismiss him. ('Course, you've gotta read his work first.)

My God there are some narrow mined assholes posting here........especially Mark! you dont like Singers conclusions or becuase they dont suit (ie your daughters disablility, my brothers disability), that has no baring on their truth value. I can tell you this he is giving it a lot more thought than you are. You havent provided one argument in your posts, just flat out denial of Singers position.....THAT AINT ACCEPTABLE!
The other guy who wrote about the dodgy Utilitarian base of singers arguments? Are you a deontologist or another kind of consequentialist? Provide your bases for tackling these issues. Dont just say that his base is dodgy! WHY IS ITS DODGY???

DP & Jeremy:

I can't speak for anyone else but I have read most of Singer's ethical philosophy - at least once - and was once utterly persuaded by it to the point of vegetarianism. I now reject his ethical outlook and am an unrepentant meat eater. I still agree with many of his other conclusions but for totally different reasons. And, as Pete notes above, Singer seemingly abandoned his own ethics when it came to the case of his own sick mother. Interesting discord between his practice and his theory.

SG

PB- What relevance has any of your post 25 to this topic? I'm sorry, I just don't know where that came from.

John Wright #23
That is the most hillarious posting I've read here. Philosophy is the study of thought and therefore the study of logic. Ah back to the same old argument, the unexamined life is not worth living again. Well here is the obvious logical flaw in your argument. The corrolary to what you said is that philosophy is the study of logic. If that were so, there would be only one correct philosophy because a logical argument has only one possible conclusion or it wouldn't be logical at all. But every philosophy is different, using its own set of rules to define what logic means to come to its own pre-established conclusion. And which one is right? Why whichever one the guy you are conversing with makes the most profit from selling at that moment. He'll be the first to tell you that all other philosophies are false. If he's crazy enough to actually believe it, he'd likely go out and kill those who disagree with him...or send you in his place to do it for him. How do you think Northern Ireland got to be so screwed up? In truth all of them are wrong because the only truely logical arguments are purely mathematical. Why? Because by definition, mathematics is a closed system of logic, independent of the real world. True mathematics is a pure abstraction (don't tell me about transcendental numbers, I know what they are and they do not change my mind about what I said.) As soon as you try to make a tangeable connection between mathematics and the real world, the certainty of its immutable logic is gone. Here's an example for you physicists at heart. Heisenberg (I think it was him) said that no two electrons in the same atom can have the same quantum numbers. One number is its spin number which can be either + 1/2 or - 1/2. Now I've read that the theory that a single electron can not only have both spin numbers at the same time, but scientists now believe that they can build very high speed computers based on that fact, much much faster than anything they had previously thought possible. (Don't ask me to explain why, I really don't see the logic in any of it.)

So where does that leave Singer? Probably as a sentimental do-gooder quasi socialist/humanist. How pedestrian, how revoltingly disgusting. And this is what you folks read and want me to read too? Pleeeze, I've got better things to do with my time. The unexamined life seems every bit as worthwhile living as I need it to be. I wasn't planning on suicide yet just because Singer hadn't come along on my bookshelf.

BTW, Ernie #24, I don't like Singer because he is a parasite. I put him in the same category as priests, ministers, rabbis, imams but not New York City taxicab drivers. The big difference is that when you pay a NYC cabby for a fare, even though you have to sit though a dose of his particular philosophy of life, when it's over, at least you have gotten to where you wanted to go all along, he takes you somewhere for your money. The others don't take me anywhere no matter how much time or money I give them. :-)

Mark:

Your own postings are rather amusing too. You have once again proven yourself quite apt at performing rather splendid self-inflicted shots to the feet.

The only thing is that this time I can't be bothered to explain it to you - you probably wouldn't get it anyway.

SG

Mark says he has better things to do with his time...LOL!!! Given the volume and length of his posts to this blogsite I beg to differ! ROFL!!!

P.

SG, I didnt mean that all of the other poster hadn't read Singer - Just a couple of them. I knew you would of :)
I鈥檝e been a vegetarian for 20 years, and the reason I remain one have varied over the years, but I鈥檇 say these days it鈥檚 more to do with the sustainability of a predominantly meat based diet. But hey, I鈥檓 more of a critical thinker than I use to be and am more accepting of people鈥檚 personal choice when it comes to ethical decisions. I鈥檇 be interested to read a critical analysis of the ethics of veganism if anybody can point me towards one.
It鈥檚 interesting to note that this 鈥渇ounding father鈥� of the animal rights movement isn鈥檛 as well respected in that movement as you鈥檇 think he鈥檇 be. There is an on-going debate between the welfare and abolitionist sides of the movement at the moment. And Singer has received a fair bit of criticism for backing welfare campaigns rather than campaigns for the complete abolition of the meat industry, which I鈥檓 sure you鈥檇 agree is fairly unlikely. I don鈥檛 see a vegan utopia arriving any time soon.
I don鈥檛 think this necessarily devalues Singers work. He鈥檚 just being more pragmatic in his approach.

dp #31
Anyone who wants to be a vegetarian would do far better to read a book on biochemestry and maybe a few about nutrition than about philosophy. A mistake will be fatal. The protiens in human beings are made of 20 amino acids 10 of which are called essential because they cannot be made from the others by the human body and must be ingested in food. And the only "complete protien" which contains all ten of them comes from animal products. If you are not going to eat animal products, you must combine vegetables in such a way as to get all ten of them in the same meal. If you don't, your body will begin to digest itself and you will begin dying. My next door neighbor's daughter was a vegetarian. I can't be sure but I have a hunch that was the reason she had a miscarriage and lost her first child. Eating meat, fish, and meat products may not agree with your philosophy but not eating them disagrees with your biology. So much for the logic of philosophy.

SG, I don't know whose army you march in and frankly I don't care. They're all the same, they have a cause, they stand up and preach to you, they convince you that following their cause is the only thing which will give your life meaning, then after you put your money in the collection plate they sign you up, give you a gun, and send you out to kill the heretics. No thanks, that's one ruse I will not fall for.

Mark #32
If we are going on personal examples of the consequences of a vegan diet. How about Donald Watson who invented the word "Vegan" and died last year at the ripe old age of 95, doesn't seem like the vegan diet did him much harm.
All healthy diets require planning - eating meat 7 days a week is only a recent phenomena and the effects on the health of the general population are fairly obvious.
But I will look in to your claims further.
cheers
dp

dp #33
What you don't know can kill you;

Kwashiorkor was believed in my physiology text to be due to lack of the essential amino acid tryptophane and was common among certain African tribes who subsisted on a diet mostly of maize. A combination of beans and rice may be adequate but they must be eaten together as is commonly done in Latin America.

Deficiency in other essential amino acids have their own consequential diseases, often seen as a combined pattern of generalized malnutrition.

From what I can tell, excessive protien consumption is not believed by most medical experts and nutritionists to be harmful except in the case of kidney disease.

The reason most humans crave meat in their diet is because it is by far the best source to supply these vital amino acids without which they die. Human variants which may have evolved who did not crave meat probably didn't survive according to Darwin's theory of natural selection. I don't think about how animals are raised or slaughtered, I just eat them...because I like to and because it is healthy for me...no matter what European agronomists and farmers say about American meat. Besides, the US didn't have an outbreak of mad cow disease or hoof and mouth disease (which Europeans call foot and mouth disease) the way Europe did. If farms and slaughterhouses were run in the US the way they were reportedly run in Britain, perhaps I'd consider becoming a vegetarian myself.

I don't care how other people decide to kill themselves but when unskilled vegetarianism is involuntarily inflicted on a child who has no choice...in the US it becomes criminal and is prosecuted, usually only discovered when the consequences become manifest. It is consdered a form of starvation.

By the way, if you don't eat red meat, you have to be on guard against anemia, especially pernicious anemia due to lack of vitamin B12 intake. Dietary supplements can help. And if you do not eat milk products, there is a real risk of lack of sufficient calcium intake with many serous health consequences.

Mark- It's astonishing that someone pretending to be as intelligent as you is so dismissive of actual thought. Let's get down to basics. If Singer has thought about ethics and has concluded that it's wrong to eat meat (for example), what are you saying about that process by your hate of philosophy?

(a) That he shouldn't have thought about it so hard?
(b) That he shouldn't share his conclusions?
(c) That thought itself is to be feared or discouraged?

You're entirely free to ignore Singer if you wish, but don't expect anyone else to agree that they should be as ignorant as you. I have no interest in whether you consider the thoughts of other people relevant or not, or how you choose to live and what you base that upon: I honestly couldn't care less if I tried. But you have no claim to knowing enough about anything to contribute anything valuable to a discussion about it.

By the way, I didn't say that the unexamined life is not worth living. Most lives are worth living no matter what influences them. But if you want to engage in a discussion about philosophy, you might try starting with the basic tenet that philosophy is a worthwhile discipline. If you don't believe that, go do something else.

Mark,
I think you overstate your case by saying that vegetarianism can kill you.
We are all going to die and your diet might just get you there a bit quicker.

Milk has it's problems too:

"Dairy products present a real and quantifiable health-risk, and include increased incidence of osteoporosis, breast and prostate cancer, heart and cardiovascular diseases, kidney disease and diabetes."

"Milk does indeed pack a fairly high dose of calcium: 300 milligrams in an eight-ounce glass. Less well known is that dairy products cause calcium to be lost through the kidneys into the urine, making it useless to the body. Fortunately, calcium is found in many other foods, including tofu, turnip greens, black-eyed peas and bok choy, and a diet rich in vegetables and fruits help the body to retain calcium. That's what really counts."

John Wright #35

How about d) that it is ludicrous because it flies in the face of the human instinct to survive and the reality of the biological facts?

By the way, my assertion that philosophy is about as worthless a study as reading the bible or the Koran is.....the result of having studied it, not out of having failed to. And like the Bible or Koran, you can find within it justification for any and every human action immagininable...proof enough that it is at the very least of suspect worth.

Ummmmmmm.........

dp #36, I don't know where you get your nutritional advice from to justify your wacko food faddist notions but they do not square with medical reality. Deny an infant milk and it will die. Deny a child milk and it will develop rickets.

Osteoporposis comes from lack of calcium absorption, dietary lack of calcium is one factor. Dairy products are very rich in calcium, mother's milk being an ideal source for infants, cows milk being an acceptable substitute although it can present problems of digestion in some due to lactose and casein. Phospherous and Vitiman D play an important role and cannot be overlooked. Sunshine promotes the synthesis of vitamin D in the human body, it is important for all people especially children to be exposed to at least some sunshine periodically so that they can absorb calcium.

Diseases like osteoporosis, diabetes, cancer, kidney, and cardiovascular diseases are complex processes, usually with many contributing factors including genetics and normaly take 5 or 6 decades to develop. Diets rich in dairy products and meat do not in themselves cause any of them. Starvation due to lack of adequate nutrition from a balanced diet which includes meat or fish and dairy products will result in debilitiation in weeks and death in a matter of months. In the US, when children die as the result of parents with your mentality, they are often prosecuted as criminals. Your philosophy carries no weight with prosecutors, judges, or juries and is never an acceptable defense for the consequences. How you starve yourself in conformance to your philosophy is your own business.

When do food faddist philosophies rise to the level of mental illness? When they are destructive to human life. Bolemia and Anorexia Nervosa are also "philosophies" about food but nobody in their right mind would agree that they are anything less than life threatening disorders. Vegetarianism is only different from them in the details of its rationalization and by degree. Unless you know exactly what you are doing...it's suicide.

One of the ways in which the damned will be confounded is that they will see themselves condemned by their own reason, by which they claim to condemn the Christian religion.
Blaise Pascal Pensees

Mark- In post 37 you suggest an argument (D) that Singer is wrong because of an appeal to biology. By giving a reply AT ALL, you are engaging in a discussion on Singer's philosophy - you are engaging in philosophy! To say you aren't is what's ludicrous. I never said 'Don't disagree with Singer'; I said 'Give logical reasons for doing so.' I'm no vegetarian myself precisely because I disagree with him in a not unsimilar way to you. The problem with you is that you're saying you don't like philosophy, yet you engage in it everyday on this blog.

If all you wanted to do was disagree with Singer, I'd be with you. But you have this foolish double-standard of throwing the baby out with the bathwater wherein you deny the relevance of philosophy while simultaneously making arguments which engage with Singer.

That's just plain bizarre.

John Wright #41
Is science a philosophy? Maybe it was considered that way once. Is that what ancients called natural philosophy or some such thing? They expounded on their notion of the physical world through pure abstract thought consistant with their others views of everything else? Well when science came along and learned the facts through the scientific method centuries later, it revealed that even the most revered philosophers like Aristotle got it DEAD WRONG. How upsetting it must have been to those who envisioned the orbits of the celestial spheres which had been set on their paths by such ideal design when it was discovered that actual orbits were not the perfect circles they'd imagined them to be but elipses and the arched trajectories of projectiles parabolas, clearly an imperfection in the design of the universe. I'm surprised the Catholic Church didn't excommunicate Kepler. Maybe they still hadn't gotten over Galileo yet when he came along. Or maybe they just wanted a clock that actually could tell the right time.

Philosophy like religion seems to me a way to rationalize the irrational, to justify whatever it was you wanted to do all along anyway....and then force other people to do it too. What a dilemma for those who study it in our modern world. On the one hand they have to choose a philosophy to believe in and live by themselves, on the other in our politically correct world, they have to reconcile tolerance for other philosophies they abhor. So what's it to be, do Catholics and Anglicans actually tolerate each other's right to live and be wrong or do they go out and kill each other for spreading the devil's poisoned seed doing his evil work? Did the Priests and Ministers of Northern Ireland tell their followers to love the other or did they close their eyes as their followers took up arms to do their neighbors in? Four hundred years it went on and there are those who are loathe to give it up still. Do Moslems tolerate the followers of prophets other than Mohammed or do they kill the infidels? Which side in Islam's debate with itself is right? Both, the Koran gives them either option. Do animal rights kooks like PETA blow up labs and kill scientists who develop new drugs by testing them on animals? Kill to prevent killing? What next, vegetarians demanding government close down slaugher houses and meat packing plants? Better to write the whole thing off for the fraud that it is and accept the world at face value on its own terms without trying to mystify it. That's what science is about. A world in which sin has no logical place because the rules men invent for each other and then claim god handed down or are natural law in their philosophy don't mean anything. But then how would you justify Crusades? How do you persuade men to risk their lives in war fighting for your cause when they are not threatened themselves? Look at Andrew McIntosh and his pal Wilder Smith; 50% pseudoscientist, 50% preacher, 100% lunatic.

Forget what PB thinks - this programme was a service to public understanding. Singer is a brilliant thinker even if, like me, you disagree with much of what he argues.

He is consistent in his response to his mother. As he said in the interview, he does not argue that people are REQUIRED to choose euthanasia.

His views on bestiality are also consistent and any anthropologist worth his salt will tell you he has a point in his analysis of history. As for the ethics of it, if you dont subscribe to a sacred text, what argument WOULD you put against it?

Mark- On the contrary, good philosophy excludes the irrational, and that is its very ambition.

John Wright #44
One man's "good philosophy" is another man's irrationality. Were they not in truth both irrational....there would have been peace in Northern Ireland.

Mark- Agreed. What's your point? The fact that people see things differently and disagree only makes philosophical discussion all the more pertinent. But the best such discussions play by the hard rules of reason, and that's what makes it fun.

John Wright #46
What's the point? I refer you to your posting #23 in which you said words to the effect that philosophy is the study of logic and here I am giving you a perfect example that not only is it not the study of logic, you have two different philosophies reaching different conclusions, both illogical, both irrational and the one thing that they have in common is justification for people to go out and kill each other, not for the purpose of defending themselves but to assert the supremacy and correctness of their philosophy. Of course if one side had the power to completely wipe the other side away with impunity at no cost to itself, it might not matter but because they don't, all they can do is incite the other side to retaliation which puts their own lives in greater jeopardy. Now what could be more illogical than that? That logic extrapolated to its ultimate dimensions was exactly the philosophy behind the American nuclear weapons policy code named "MAD" for mutually assured destruction. It wasn't called mad for nothing, it was recognition that the entire situation was insane, just like Northern Ireland's.

So the philosopher claims that the unexamined life is not worth living? It seems to me that the examined life leads to adopting a philosophy, a cause, one worth dying for. It's more about arousing passions than anything else. A search for truth, justice, and death to the infidels who stand in opposition to it. Makes you want to join an army and take up arms to fight for someone's "ism."

I really think it is not wise for people to keep buying and reading these books. It only encourages the Singers of the world to go out and write more of them.

Mark #39

As I said before, I think you are overstating your case.

鈥淪tarvation due to lack of adequate nutrition from a balanced diet which includes meat or fish and dairy products will result in debilitation in weeks and death in a matter of months.鈥�

Shock ! Horror! 鈥� you have a very florid way of writing. Yes diet is important, but I don鈥檛 see any vegetarians dropping in the street from malnutrition. Most vegetarians I know are in better shape than the meat eaters I know. The increasing levels of obesity in children would indicate that as a nation we do have a problem with our diets, and the vegetarian diet can be a healthy alternative to the fast food culture that has developed.
I don鈥檛 have a problem with anyone鈥檚 personal decisions to eat meat, but to try and link all vegetarians in with someone who causes malnutrition in their child is like saying all meat eaters are trying to make their kids obese.
Neither a meat based or vegetarian diets are inherently unhealthy.
Carl Lewis was a vegan when he was fastest man on the planet 鈥� just shows what a good balanced diet that doesn鈥檛 contain any animal products is capable of.

David:

The point about Singer's mother is not that he should have had her killed per se, the point is that he spent thousands on her treatment when surely those thousands could have been put to better use - saving several people, say, in Africa, and letting his mother die. A ultilitarian such as Singer has no moral reason for putting his own mother's interests first. If he wants to stick to his "equal consideration of interests" then spending thousands on his mother was immoral by his own standards. Allow me to quote Peter Berkowitz: "it is hard to imagine a more stunning rebuke to the well-heeled and well-ensconced academic discipline of practical ethics than that its most controversial and influential star, at the peak of his discipline, after an Oxford education, after 25 years as a university professor, and after the publication of thousands of pages laying down clear cut rules on life-and-death issues, should reveal, only as the result of a reporter's prodding, and only in the battle with his own elderly mother's suffering, that he has just begun to appreciate that the moral life is complex."

Singer failed by his own standards and the fact that his rather dogmatic ethical system has no room for personal relationships - the very thing that makes us what we are and makes life worth living at all - is the most damning indictment on his life work.

SG

David:

You should read the article on Singer by Mark Coffey in Issue 59 of Philosophy Now. It's a "pros and cons" analysis. I think several of the cons are damning.

S.

#50

Stephen, do you know if that article is on line anywhere?

David #49
Do as I say, not as I do? Not only is moral philosophy complex, Singer's or anyone elses, it shifts with the sands of time and the circumstances at hand. With no fixed reference, no certitudes, no eternal truths except the ones pronounced by the philosopher at that moment, how could philosophy be anything but worthless. At least the creationists are consistant...wrong but consistant.
Ever hear the expression "as funny as a Christian Scientist with appendicitis?" (BTW for those who don't know, Christian Science is a sect which shuns all medical procedures especially those which employ blood transfusions, transplants, or extracts from animal sera and tissue. When their children get sick and are brought to a hospital and they refuse lifesaving medical treatment to save them, the doctors usually have no trouble gettin a court order to overrule them because they have abrogated their legal rights as parents in the eyes of American law, I think in all states.)

Mark- You still fail to acknowledge that most (not all) philosophers appeal to logic to make their case, and that therefore if they're wrong you can use logic to make that case also. Bad philosophy derives from illogical thought; good philosophy cannot be refuted easily because it is reasonable. It doesn't mean 'Throw out philosophy!' Neither does it mean that the unexamined life is not worth living. By the way, you've repeated that several times on this thread and I still don't know where you got it. It's certainly not a statement I subscribe to.

John Wright #53

"The unexamined life is not worth living"

Socrates

John, you sure know a lot about philosophy.

Here's Willie's take on philosophy;

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Hamlet

If you take him at his word, he's saying that any philosophy is incomplete and therefore false because it inadequately will leave questions unanswered. Of course what did Willie know about it anyway. The only thing important to him was the play. "The play's the thing..." After all, the show MUST go on.

dp...only if you subscribe to Philosophy Now. If you're interested in philosophy generally then subscribing is well worth it.

John:

Why are you arguing with someone who doesn't even understand the terms of the debate? I had a debate with Mark recently that showed nothing other than his lack of understanding of the point at issue and here he is again utterly failing to grasp the basics let alone anything remotely more complicated. All he is offering you is a few half-baked platitudes and crude caricatures of philosophy. Why waste your time?

SG

When the subject of philosophy comes up, why discuss what Socrates or Aristotle said...when we have men like Wilder Smith...or Peter Singer for that matter to bestow their wisdom on us.

If you keep you head while everyone around you is losing theirs....you probably don't have a clue as to what's actually going on.

To change the subject ...

Was anyone else amazed in this interview when Singer refused to condemn adult-child sexual relations except in cases where the child was harmed by the encounter? I thought that really showed his position to be completely ludicrous.

garathlee #57
How does that change the subject? That IS the subject. As I said, philosophers can rationalize anything they do, or want to do, or want others to do. I think they work backwards by starting with the assumption that a pariticular action is justifiable and then invent an argument which ends with the most basic intuitive notions. Then they play the tape in reverse so that it appears to be a coherent line of thinking and logic and their original assumption becomes the conclusion. People buy into it because they don't see through it and are intimidated by the notion that philosophers are great thinkers somehow smarter and better than the rest of us. I just won't fall for it, I know a scam when I see one...well I usually do anyway.

By the way, most experts feel that all child/adult sexual encounters are harmful to children. That's why there are laws against them in every country in the world...I think, even if they aren't always enforced.