You don't make a lot of sense when you get emotional.

JOHN_A_DESIGNER wrote:

I'm thinking I'm beginning to understand EA's like Keiths a little bit better. He seems to be arguing in this thread as he has elsewhere that that smarter people are just better people just because they are smarter. So the bottom line is that it isn't important that Singer live up to his own moral standards, smart people don't need to.

If you reread my comments, you'll see that I'm saying that Singer's moral ideas should be judged on their own merits. You even quote me (below), saying exactly that.

So if we compare two options someone who lives an exemplary moral life like Jesus of Nazareth, Mother Teresa or William Wilberforce, who brought real lasting positive change in the world with smart people like Peter Singer, who hasn't exactly lived up to high moral or ethical standard, the smart people win. Why? Because they are smart!

Only in your fevered imagination.

Look at the evidence. Keiths writes:

You suspect wrongly. I haven't read Singer, and what I do know about his ethics is too sketchy for me to have formed a strong opinion. What I do feel strongly about is that ethical ideas, like all ideas, should be judged on their merits.

You see, Keiths has not even read Singer's book, yet he regards him as a moral as well as intellectual leader. Why? Because he is smart! Or, do EA's still prefer to use the term Bright?

You quote me as saying that I haven't formed a strong opinion of Singer's ethics, and yet you claim that I regard him as a moral and intellectual leader. Doesn't that strike you as a bit of a non-sequitur?

So if we compare two options someone who lives an exemplary moral life like Jesus of Nazareth, Mother Teresa or William Wilberforce, who brought real lasting positive change in the world with smart people like Peter Singer, who hasn't exactly lived up to high moral or ethical standard, the smart people win. Why? Because they are smart!

Look at the evidence. Keiths writes:

You suspect wrongly. I haven't read Singer, and what I do know about his ethics is too sketchy for me to have formed a strong opinion. What I do feel strongly about is that ethical ideas, like all ideas, should be judged on their merits.

You see, Keiths has not even read Singer's book, yet he regards him as a moral as well as intellectual leader. Why? Because he is smart! Or, do EA's still prefer to use the term Bright?

BTW I would argue that morality and ehtics is about the way we are actually supposed to live. IMO then abstract ivory tower theories about morality and ethics are next to useless.

Your comment was another long harangue on the fact that Singer does not live up to the ethical standards he is proposing "” a fact that he forthrightly acknowledges.

You are spinning. It's not a question of whether he acknowledges he doesn't "live up" to his ethical standards, because as you say, none of us do. But not all of us have a second home in Manhattan and trust funds.

Why focus on Singer's personal life, or the life of the English professor across campus, if neither is relevant to the merit of Singer's ideas?

Both guys are highly influential and use their influence to preach things they don't practice. Well, we're fairly alike on something. You once told me, "I just think it's wrong to criticize others for transgressions you indulge in, and so I point it out when I see it." We differ in that I think the principle becomes increasingly important in relation to the influence/power of the person.

That, and I needed something to blog about and ran across the linked articles. I'll concede that it annoys me when a pampered professor won't sell off his fancy second home but tells struggling families that they need to do more than he does.

Your comment was another long harangue on the fact that Singer does not live up to the ethical standards he is proposing — a fact that he forthrightly acknowledges.

Why focus on Singer's personal life, or the life of the English professor across campus, if neither is relevant to the merit of Singer's ideas?

Your insistence that "turn the other cheek" applies only to a literal slap would make the best backwoods fundagelical Christian proud. Do you also believe that Methuselah lived to be 969 years old, and that "the love of money is the root of all evil"

Even if we were to accept your interpretation of the verse, what does it say about God that he would impart one of his most important moral lessons in a way that was guaranteed to be misinterpreted by most modern Christians?

Why does the Creator of the universe have such a hard time getting the message across to His sincere followers?

And so zero New Testament scholars think that the verse from Luke refers in its cultural context to anything other than a backhanded blow by the right hand to the right cheek; as is also clear from the Matthaean parallel, since Matthew's gospel has a Jewish 'audience' (as every NT scholar knows), and Matthew, as always throughout his gospel, spells out with a knowing Jewish wink what every first century Jew knew: namely that it's, of course, the well-known-to-1st century-Judaeans practice of the back-handed right-handed insulting slap to the right cheek that Jesus, the good Jew, is referring to.

Still, that in no way disproves the claim advanced by not a single NT scholar that Jesus was retaliating after he'd been slapped on one of his cheeks by a moneychanger, thus demonstrably proving to 'bright' types that Jesus was a moral hypocrite.

For some reason, I've got this image of a particularly wooden piece of wood in my mind's eye right now.

And your basis for this assertion would be?

Because he spends the money on himself?

Or don't you think we should judge a tree by the fruit that it bears?

That's much better. So let's get to the arguments.

Singer, like you and I, fails to live up to his own ethical standards. So did Jesus. That doesn't disqualify any of us from commenting usefully on moral issues.

No where did I argue that Singer was disqualified from commenting usefully on moral issues.

I noted, "It is Singer himself, the highly influential philosopher, who is guilty of double standards."

And you replied:

Not true. He applies his own standards to himself and acknowledges that he comes up short.

"Comes up short" makes it sound like Singer is trying very hard to live up to his standards, but since he is fallible like the rest of us, he simply comes up short. Yet that is not how it looks to me. It looks more like Singer is largely ignoring his own moral standards. Consider that this highly influential ethicist used the influential pages of the NYT to argue that the typical American family should get by on $30,000/year. Since most people associate ethics with a sense of duty, he is telling a family that makes $50,000/year to give away $20,000. Yet consider what the Reason magazine article says:

Singer's proclamation about income has also come back to haunt him. To all appearances, he lives on far more than $30,000 a year. Aside from the Manhattan apartment-he asked me not to give the address or describe it as a condition of granting an interview-he and his wife Renata, to whom he has been married for some three decades, have a house in Princeton. The average salary of a full professor at Princeton runs around $100,000 per year; Singer also draws income from a trust fund that his father set up and from the sales of his books.

Now, I must confess that I don't know anyone who has a house in California and an apartment in Manhattan. But if Singer was really trying to live up to his ethical standards, why does he need two places to live? Doesn't Singer have an ethical duty to start living up to his standards by selling his Manhattan apartment and giving the money to the poor?

Do you have any evidence that Singer supports animal rights terrorism?

Just as I did not say Singer is disqualified from commenting, neither did I say he supports animal rights terrorism. I said that his sense of ethics has greatly influenced the extreme animal rights movement, a movement that terrorizes scientists and universities. I offered this as one example of his influence on society.

First, you're wrong about euthanasia. Singer does not argue that it should be mandatory; only that it is morally permissible in certain circumstances.

Really? According to Singer's logic, he is killing sentient children in order to keep his non-sentient mother alive. Like I said, he doesn't even come close to living up to his own ethical standards about euthanasia and donating to charities.

On the income issue, Singer acknowledges that he falls short of his own standards.

No, he doesn't even come close. If he sold his Manhattan apartment and donated his trust fund, he still wouldn't be close. But at least that would be a substantive start. This is not about "falling short," as it would be closer to the truth to argue that Singer doesn't seem to care about his own standards.

As an aside, do you think the utilitarian ethicist might argue that it is worse to kill ten people than one person?

I asked, "Why is it that Singer cannot live up to his own ethical standards?" and you replied:

Presumably because they are difficult to live up to.

That truth was obviously embedded in my question, thus it is not an answer. Why is it so difficult for Singer to live up to his own standards?

I asked, "If we are to give Singer a pass, why aren't other people allowed a pass?" and you replied:

Singer isn't asking for a pass.

I think he is. If he is going to use the NYT to tell a husband and wife, each making a whopping $25,000/year, to donate $20,000 of it, he should take the lead and at least sell his Manhattan apartment and donate his trust fund. He gets away with such luxuries while others excuse his hypocrisy as "falling short." Yet according to his own standards, he is more unethical than the typical American family. Why do you describe him as "falling short" rather than highly unethical?

Keiths, none of us do the right thing all the time.

True enough (although I can't recall arguing otherwise).

Are you arguing that TT cannot critique those you mentioned while they are free to say pretty much anything they wish?

Here's the point. Mike is interested in Singer's private life because Singer is an ethicist who has made specific ethical recommendations that Mike dislikes. Mike calls attention to, and lays great emphasis upon, the fact that Singer does not fully live up to his own ethical standards.

My question is, why is that important? If an ethical system is sound, it's sound. The source of that ethical system is irrelevant. Likewise, if it's unsound, it's unsound, even if the person proposing it is a saint.

If Singer were claiming that he shouldn't be bound by his own proposed system of ethics, you would be right to ask why. But he isn't doing that. He's arguing that his system should apply to society as a whole.

Given that, it seems to me that the only relevant question is, "Is it a good system of ethics?"

BTW, can you link me to the comment you made a week or more ago when you cited some references related to free will? I have something in mind and would like to have another look.

I'm not sure exactly which comment you're referring to, but the topic of soul vs. brain came up here and continued through the rest of the thread.

Actually there are two possible pure utilitarian viewpoints. One is that buying the TV amounts to murder.

The other view is that a person of superior mental capacity could use the TV to increase his superior intellect, and this serves a more utilitarian purpose than keeping six useless people alive.

I would venture to guess that Singer's brand of utilitarianism would resemble the latter.

And your basis for this assertion would be?