Peter Singer - classic or dud? OR "It's OK to kill disabled babies!"

Saying that, I think treating utilitarianism as a solid philosophical base to build a rigourous moral or ethical system on is asking for trouble, and that the notion of animal rights is deeply suspect.

x-post

By the way, isn't it already legal for parents to abort an severely disabled child if they so choose, at least back here it is.

Peter Singer does not write or defend animal rights. He bases his opinions on animal welfare issues.

Overall I'd say he's classic, but I disagree with some of the things he raises.

Note that in the Bill of Rights we have crated an un-democratic citadel of individualism past which democracy must never go. Traditional Christian individualism (imortal soul)has long been a moral bulwark against mere utility but I fear, (especially as an atheistic agnostic)that this will soon no longer be the case. I say 'I fear' because I am attached to the idea of not being 'voted off the island' except for serious crimes and not just for the convenience of the greatest number.

Yeah, that's one way of looking at it. But entertain, for a moment, the possibility that we've been living out our lives at the bottom of another slippery slope, one that says all human life is sacred and all non-human life is disposable. Cruelty laws don't begin to address the lifelong agony of most farm animals, for instance.

As the article puts it: "When Singer compares severely disabled babies to animals, he seems - out of context - to be insulting the disabled. In fact, he is trying to make us take cows and pigs and dogs far more seriously."

We ought to prevent what is bad when we can do so w/o sacrificing anything of comparable moral signifigance.

From this he concludes that one is morally required to give nearly all of their surplus monies and/or energy to the poor and suffreing in third world countries. Of course, he admits he doesn't even follow this himself, but it remains a provocative argument.

if you're a teacher, good to remember these every time you read your own student evaluations:

http://critical-theory.com/rate-professor/?utm_source=feedly

Peter Singer is not necessarily a critical theorists, but he is well known in the community as an object of their contempt. Through his defense of utilitarianism, he has received scorn from critical theorists, disability activists, and other animal liberation advocates.

I’m not sure who is more of a douche, Peter Singer or this next commenter.

His inability to comprehend the logic of Chapter 6 of Francione’s “Introduction to Animal Rights” indicates a severe weakness in Singer’s analytical abilities. Perhaps Singer failed logic class. He lacks solid reasoning skills and should be shun (sic)

This next commenter missed a great opportunity for a quality pun like, “He’ll Sing you to sleep,” zing!

He is highly overrated. His ideas are pretty radical but you’d never know because he presents them soooo blandly. Don’t be fooled by the name…Peter Singer will put you to sleep!

I don’t think this next person understands how academia works.

This man does not belong in Academia. Very wierd ideas. Not recommended

I remember getting the impression he was talking about animals, using babies as arguments rather than talking about babies by comparing them to animals. But that was a long time ago.

Animal Liberation so completely convinced me that veganism was the only ethical choice that I gave up on ethics

it's hard to do at first

you just have to keep reminding yourself about all the suffering you're no longer experiencing by giving it up

??