31–40 of 134 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Do you have a point to add to that? Do you feel there’s some reason he’s obviously wrong for example?
Relevant context. Singer has a lot of clout because people read some of his stuff in a first year philosophy class. For those who didn't get the memo that the man is a crazy misanthrope, him taking the idea of infanticide seriously is a pretty good indicator of what his specific grift actually is.
I’m disappointed he projects some sort of idealised aloof moral superiority on anything non human, as though humans are obviously morally inferior to any possible other species. That our failings are somehow objectively inexcusable. He chooses dolphins. The primary reproductive strategy of many dolphins is to gang up on a female, beat her into submission and gang rape her. They also routinely murder the infants of ri…
How would we go about doing it in a sane way for animals?
Utilitarianism and consequentialism are very dangerous; they make it too easy for people to justify murder by doing a little moral arithmetic and (consciously or subconsciously) putting their finger on the scale by selectively considering or ignoring some outcomes. Peter Singer has demonstrated this himself, having seen fit to justify the murder of children for the greater good. This is why good moral philosophies ha…
Close but no cigar, that deontology begs the question _why_ should we not murder people. Utilitarianism gives a consistent, albeit simple, answer. Note that I probably agree with you, but the solution isn’t as simple as you think.
Utilitarianism and consequentialism are very dangerous; they make it too easy for people to justify murder by doing a little moral arithmetic and (consciously or subconsciously) putting their finger on the scale by selectively considering or ignoring some outcomes. Peter Singer has demonstrated this himself, having seen fit to justify the murder of children for the greater good. This is why good moral philosophies ha…
Eg, try and find people who believe US participation in WWII was immoral because participation involved German children as collateral damage.
Rules like "don't murder people" don't ever work. If you held yourself to that rule, your opponent would have a very easy time exploiting it. So in my opinion such rules more exist as a pretty fiction than as an actual practice.
In his book “Practical Ethics” he recommends infanticide up to 2 years old as a logical extension to abortion.
In his book “Practical Ethics” he recommends infanticide up to 2 years old as a logical extension to abortion.
If it’s in relation to abortion cutoff times it’s an important question to ask. I’ve never met someone with a rational answer to that question. It mostly boils down to what they personally feel comfortable with emotionally (and that’s fine, but not something you can apply in law for all people).
Every democratic country has laws which are motivated by the way people feel emotionally. Check out this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe#/media/File...
12 weeks in Germany, 24 weeks in the UK. Why is there such a difference? Because these laws are based on how people feel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Relevant context. Singer has a lot of clout because people read some of his stuff in a first year philosophy class. For those who didn't get the memo that the man is a crazy misanthrope, him taking the idea of infanticide seriously is a pretty good indicator of what his specific grift actually is.
[flagged]
Wow. Do you have any experience with little kids? With 23 months my daughter was drawing pictures, singing songs, laughing at my jokes, reenacting scenes from theater plays, etc.
The most important of Singer's writings, in my opinion, is "Secrecy in Consequentialism"[0], mentioned in this podcast too, though not the crucial part, which I will present without further comment except that this paper should make any utterance from Singer or any of his followers (for example, SBF) inherently untrustworthy. > There are acts which are right only if no one – or virtually no one – will get to know abo…
So for instance, in the real world you can't guarantee you will get away with it. Real surgeons operate in teams, not alone, and are surrounded by other well trained professionals. Real people have loved ones that may press for an investigation of what happened, especially if the patient's death was suspiciously convenient.
So now the real calculus is more complicated. Your calculus isn't nearly as simple as "1 patient vs 4 recipients". You could get caught. The organs might be unusable. The transplant might get rejected. Investigations may result in enormous negative consequences. Etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Do you have a point to add to that? Do you feel there’s some reason he’s obviously wrong for example?
Are you being serious? Or is this just some wicked kind of sarcasm?
It's a bit disappointing to read the comments here, the level is not very high. He's a philosopher, he's going to ask thorny questions and sometimes end up with logically sound but inhuman answers. This doesn't really tell us much about him as a person. You can lower your pitch forks.
.png){kind=link}