Enlightenment Comes
by MikeGene.jpg)
The Great Bioethicist, Peter Singer, is going to use Reason to show us the way this week:
Singer does not believe that the difference between humans and animals is fundamental, nor is human life solely sacrosanct. On his fourth lecture scheduled on May 21 at the Press Center, he plans to go through the argument for human embryo research as well as euthanasia of newborn babies with severe disabilities.
Oh, pay no attention to the fact that this fountain of ethics cannot practice what he preaches:
Even Singer cannot live up to all of his own standards. When his mother could no longer speak or think due to advanced Alzheimer's disease — rendering her a "nonperson" by his own criterion — he spent large sums to keep her alive. While he says he gives 20 percent of his income to charity, he admits he lives on far more money than the standards set in his books.
May 20th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Mike wrote:
The second article quotes Singer:
Of course, Christians have no trouble living up to their code of ethics:
Comment by keiths — May 20, 2007 @ 9:35 am
May 20th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Hi Keiths,
1st off, humans are fallible - Christians are humans - Christians are fallible.
Also, why did you shift the target to Christians? Is that how you address a point that Mike brings up by saying, "well look how Christians act!".
I'm not saying you are, but that's kind of a juvenile way to handle things.
Comment by Doug — May 20, 2007 @ 10:28 am
May 20th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Hi Doug,
Thank you for coming out of lurker mode.
You asked…
Why hold Atheists to a higher standard?
You also said…
I'm not saying you are, especially since you didn't say anything, Mike did.
What is your opinion of Mike's decision to emphasize a specific case showing "humans are fallible"
Do you think it is ethical to suggest Keith and I might be acting juvenile by saying "he started it" while ignoring Mike's role in all of this?
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 20, 2007 @ 11:04 am
May 20th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Higher standard?
Oh, you mean a consistent standard…. since we are talking about Singer and all.
Sorry about that, I've got this thing with consistency in one's position.
Keiths is the one that shifted the target to Christians and you're keeping the target there. The issue is the inconsistency with Singer's position - I admire the fact that he's doing that (caring for his mother), but when one is advocating the euthanasia of newborn babies with severe disabilities it seems well worth it to point out the inconsistency.
What, do you want me to admit that Singer is fallible? Okay, I do. Thanks for provoking that thought.
Do you honestly believe that is the best way to handle a conversation is to pull up another topic opposed to addressing the initial topic?
Why can't Keiths (or you) touch on what Singer is doing? So busy provoking thought in others that you neglect the actual topic?
Comment by Doug — May 20, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Hi Doug,
You wrote…
Actually, I didn't say anything about Christians. I shifted the target to you and Mike.
The issue is about inconsistencies in positions, period. Either that, or an attempt to discredit a particular idea by attacking the fallible human communicating it.
Shall we talk about ethical consistencies unrelated to whether of not "human life solely sacrosanct"
Alternatively, we could talk about sanctity of human life which has nothing to do with the human faults of one particular individual.
It would be unethical to attempt to conflate the two. Don't you agree, Doug?
However, you wrote…
Why does it seem "well worth it"
Could it be because this idea disgusts you so much that any tactic, not matter how unethical, is justified? …because your sense of morality demands it?
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 20, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Well I was way off then.
For something as bold as Singer is advancing (euthanasia of babies that aren't up to par) this particular inconsistency of his is important.
Yes TP, there are more examples of inconsistencies in all positions.
Kind of like how you pride yourself on provoking thought, but you rarely do it to those who are in agreement with you on a particular issue…. like when their reasoning for that position is short-sighted, incorrect, or whatever. It's not that you provoke thought, it's that you do it selectively. And if someone agrees with you but their reasoning is unsound, I don't usually see you provoking thought in them.
The effects that it would have on society. Take away the value of the life of a baby, claim that there is nothing innate about it that gives it worth - regardless of the physical condition it arrives in this world…. and sit back and watch how this ripples outward in society.
What do you mean by tactic? A tactic to avoid it from happening?
What does it mean to say "because your sense of morality demands it"
When you say that, what do you mean by that?
Comment by Doug — May 20, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Hi Doug,
If I haven't made it obvious before now, let me emphasize that I respect you.
You and I have different philosophies. That doesn't mean we can't respect each other. If you are interested in some of the basis for my philosophy take a look at my open letter to Salvador. here
You wrote…
I could point to where I challenged Panda's Thumb commenters, but you are essentially correct. I am not comfortable around people who agree with me because I have to constantly guard against group think. Here, I can be sure people will keep me honest in my thought provoking efforts. That is why I like it here.
I am not surprised by your confusion.
I, also, wouldn't be surprised that you don't see how I view "ethics" differently than "morality".
Is it ethical to lie on the witness stand? Is it moral to lie on the witness stand in a kangaroo court determined to unfairly take a human life?
I would say "no" to the first and "yes" to the second question. I suspect you would too. However, I would say "no" to the following…
Is it ethical to lie on the witness stand in a kangaroo court determined to unfairly take a human life?
The ethical thing to do would be to refuse to take the witness stand in the first place even though that might result in the forfeit of two human lives. What an individual chooses to do will be guided by his/her conscience and human frailties.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 20, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
TP:
You seem to believe that pointing out the inconsistency in Singer's position on killing the loved ones of other people because they don't pass his muster on life that should be allowed to exist is some kind of "tactic." When all it is in fact is pointing out that Singer doesn't apply his own Neo-eugenics position in his own life and to his own loved ones.
…which means - as can be parsed by anyone - that he lobs these outrageous arguments just to get a rise out of people. He doesn't really believe in their worth.
Doug:
I suspect it means that people who see the intrinsic value of human life entertain a morality that values human life. For the most part, this is true. People like Singer and the rest of the Neo-eugenecists want us to engage the general disscussion of whether or not there is intrinsic value in human life. So they pretend not so.
The pretense is revealed as pretense by the fact that Singer doesn't apply his outrageous views to his own life. Therefore we are left with the question of whether or not there's any value to the discussion they wish us to engage. Singer obviously doesn't think so or he'd have advocated euthanasia of his mother. Therefore the whole charade is revealed as pointless, since the morality that values human life extends even to EAs and Neo-eugenecists.
Comment by Joy — May 20, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Another inconsistency in Singer's position is clear from Mike's link to the Korea Times. From the article:
Three paragraphs later:
So we've got an animal rights advocate who believes animals feel pain, but who doesn't believe disabled humans can feel pain. Though there is no difference in his view between animals and humans.
Positively head-spinning in its sheer inconsistency! A singularly lousy philosopher IMO.
Comment by Joy — May 20, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Joy:
Does Singer advocate that euthanasia should be obligatory? I am glad to live in a place where euthanasia is permitted under certain conditions. Both my grandfathers were euthanized (overdosed on morphine) to end their pointless suffering. Does that mean their life wasn't valued?
Comment by Raevmo — May 20, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
And Joy concludes from this:
How do you call someone who consistently falsely detects inconsistencies?
Comment by Raevmo — May 20, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
This looks consistent with Singer's philosophy. I like the idea of protecting apes but not equating them to humans.
Comment by Bradford — May 20, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
You and Mike are framing/spinning this issue and you are astute enough to know that. We all do it. We all employ "tactics" including the tactic of pretending what we are doing isn't employing tactics but "…all it is in fact is pointing out…" something we want pointed out.
If you take the emotion out of it. A nutritionist could itemise all the good reasons for being a vegetarian while not being a vegetarian himself. Would this "fact" mean the nutritionist's reasoning was faulty?
It is when you bring emotion and morality into the equation that such a dispassionate analysis is ignored because the issue is too important and requires more critical "tactics" in its analysis.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 20, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Raevmo:
I don't know if he thinks it should be obligatory. Since he applies it to others rather than his own loved ones, it's certainly a good question.
Good for you for living in a place where you can kill someone who can't speak for themselves. Of course, letting nature take its course works as well, and here we have "Living Wills" and "Health Care Surrogates" who make such decisions, such as ending the code on my sister when she died, or allowing my mother to starve herself to death when she was done with living.
My problem is primarily with the American health care system, which is last among industrialized countries. Nobody has to worry about getting unplugged if they're never plugged up in the first place. People are allowed to die every day in this country, whether their families approve or not. So the discussion Singer wants to promote is what is pointless. The system doesn't care at all what is 'valued'. It's all about profit.
Comment by Joy — May 20, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
TP:
The reasoning wouldn't be faulty, but the nutritionist would be revealed as a hypocrite (inconsistent) if he advised others to become vegetarians based on his reasoning.
I brought no emotion, and neither did Mike. Do you think it is improper to bring morality into discussions of moral issues? How weird…
Comment by Joy — May 20, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Joy, deliberately misrepresenting what I said:
In this place euthanasia is understood to mean termination of life by a medical practitioner at the request of a patient. So no killing of anyone who can't speak for themselves.
Comment by Raevmo — May 20, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Raevmo:
In order to demonstrate deliberate misrepresentation, you'd have had to specify that euthanasia was your grandfathers' directive. Since what you said was…
…it is nowhere specified that this was their own directive. Please stop with the garbage. It's boring.
Comment by Joy — May 20, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Hi Joy,
No. But then again, if we are discussing moral issues, then talking about religious values would be appropriate, right?
As I have indicated before, I make a distinction between ethics and morality. I understand many (most) other people don't.
He is the logical progression I see being attempted here..
inconsistent = unethical = immoral.
With the converse being…
consistent = ethical = moral = religious.
Doug objected to the last connection. I objected to the middle one.
I am curious to see what you object to.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 20, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
TP:
So now you want to talk religion? Sorry, TP. I don't care to participate in that discussion, but go ahead. Others may indulge you.
I think there's a distinction, quite along the lines you expressed.
Huh. I didn't see religion mentioned until you decided to bring it up. I merely think inconsistency reflects hypocrisy. Religious people have no corner on that market. It comes in every human shape and size.
You ask what I object to. I object to blatant hypocrisy in the context of moral values that are preached but not practiced, and ethics that are challenged but not meaningfully.
Comment by Joy — May 20, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Hi Joy,
I wrote… As I have indicated before, I make a distinction between ethics and morality. I understand many (most) other people don't.
You responded with…
It is extremely satisfying to hear that from you.
I probably should have stopped on the positive note. However, you wrote…
I don't know what Peter Singer "preached" or is preaching. I only know MikeGene's opinion is based on selected quotes from various news reports. Mike chose to challenge Mr. Singer's ethics ("meaningfully"). Doug responded in such a way that it allowed me to bring out what I see as a distinction between ethics and morality. Mission accomplished.
If you are ok with this, so am I.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 20, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Hi TP,
My "role?" Quick, someone call Nellie!
A "specific case?" Let's consider who this "specific case" is. According to the first link, Singer "was among Time Magazine's list of the world's 100 most influential people in 2005. The magazine stated that "he is a man whose reasoning merits consideration by everyone. There are few philosophers, living or dead, about whom that can be said." The New Yorker once described the 60-year-old as "maybe the most controversial philosopher alive."" According to the second link, Singer "is considered to be one of the most influential living philosophers."
My, that looks like more than some ol' specific case to me. As Uncle Ben says, with great power, comes great responsibility. So let us first establish that Dr. Singer is not some little pajama-clad guy shooting his mouth off on the internet. This is a very influential person deeply entrenched from within academia.
Comment by MikeGene — May 20, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
You made your point. I think I made mine.
Can we talk about science now?
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 20, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Here is some more:
Is the ethicist now blaming his sister for his inability to practice what he preaches?
So the ethicist will only start to practice what he preaches when others start to join him.
And then there is this:
So he hopes the doctors will secretly kill the baby and then lie to the parents.
Comment by MikeGene — May 20, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
If anyone is interested I have an interview coming up with Dr Singer on The Sci Phi Show.
It wont offically be released for about a week but you can find it early at
http://thesciphishow.com/audio...
Jason
Comment by thesciphishow — May 20, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
i know nothing about this singer guy, but just to relate some info: my sister was born 4 and a half months premature (i remember her literally being the size of a pencil, both in length and width, she could fit in the palm of one's hand.). today she is blind with cerebral palsy, and must take anti seizure meds as well. when she was born, the doctors told my mother that she would be a vegetable, nothing more, no chance of anything more at all. they said she would be deaf, blind, mute, and retarded as shit. today, though she is a bit socially stunted, she can hear, and is very intelligent, especially when it comes to playing the piano and studying music. she reads, writes fiction, and also is very religious (maybe thats the retard in her, i dont know) im not sure how all of this fits into what singer said, but as mike gene says hes saying lets kill em if we think they aint gonna be too good. just figured id tell the story to give you guys a personal experience.
Comment by dantedanti — May 20, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
May 20th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Hi DanteDanti,
What you said bordered on being the perfect comment for this topic.
Thank You.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 20, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 3:16 am
Mike wrote:
Ah, yes. The Pajama Defense, also known as the Lil Ol' Me Defense. I was expecting this, as it seems to be Mike's favorite excuse when he is accused of applying a double standard. You see, Mike is free to criticize, but he's not required to do the right thing himself until he becomes a Big Name like Dawkins, Harris, and Singer.
As Jesus said:
What's really going on here? I suspect that Mike is afraid that people will take Singer's ideas seriously and judge his arguments on their merits. Just as with Dawkins and Harris, Mike's goal is to get people to dismiss Singer's arguments without looking at them. What better way to do this than by making Singer the issue, instead of Singer's ideas?
Hmmm. There is a problem with that approach. Did Jesus live up to his own ethical standards? That episode with the Temple moneychangers wasn't exactly "turn the other cheek", was it? Shall we ignore Christian morality on that basis, Mike?
Comment by keiths — May 21, 2007 @ 3:16 am
May 21st, 2007 at 4:36 am
It's amazing what one learns at TT on a daily basis.
For example, today I learned that Jesus not only drove out moneychangers from the Temple area, but was struck by one or more of them first, and then acted in retaliation.
I never knew that.
What I did know, however, is that turning one's cheek upon being struck was probably enjoined by Jesus as a way of giving a sign that one was the social equal, not an inferior, of the person doing the striking. Such striking of a person deemed by cultural norms to be the assailant's social inferior was given only with the back of the right hand. If the person struck then turned to offer the other cheek, this was a way of defiantly signaling equality, since a second blow to the offered opposite cheek could not so easily be delivered by the back of the right hand.
Comment by stunney — May 21, 2007 @ 4:36 am
May 21st, 2007 at 6:11 am
stunney,
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at your willingness to reinterpret Scripture for your own purposes.
First, look at the verse from Matthew, in context this time:
Defiance is completely out of place in that passage, as it is in the similar passage from Luke:
Second, note that in the passage from Luke, Jesus doesn't distinguish between the right cheek and left cheek. If defiance were the point, he would be careful to specify which cheek he was talking about in both passages.
Try again, stunney.
Comment by keiths — May 21, 2007 @ 6:11 am
May 21st, 2007 at 8:56 am
Keiths:
Which is important counter-balance against the Just One of Us Defense. Given his history of obsession with me, I can understand why Keith wants to distract attention to me as a way of getting the focus off a philosopher who was among Time Magazine's list of the world's 100 most influential people in 2005. Sorry Keith, but it is clear that Singer is not just some specific example. Anyone of us here could qualify as a specific example. None of us here are among the most influential people in the world.
It is Singer himself, the highly influential philosopher, who is guilty of double standards. Does Keith, who likes to accuse others of double standards, criticize Singer for this? Nope. He gives Singer a pass and tries to refocus the thread. This is yet another example of Keith's hypocrisy. He had another chance to show us that all those accusations he makes were rooted in principle. He failed.
Consider what the influential ethicist has to say:
Thus, Singer doesn't have to do the right thing until everyone else does. Does Keiths comment on this? Nope. He's more obsessed with trying to discredit me.
I suspect that people like Singer, Harris, and Dawkins are personal heroes to Keith and thus he takes it very personally when they are legitimately criticized.
I suspect Keith is projecting here. I suspect that Keith is afraid that people will take MikeGene's ideas seriously and judge his arguments on their merits. Keith's goal is to get people to dismiss MikeGene's arguments without looking at them. What better way to do this than by making MikeGene the issue, instead of MikeGene's ideas? One of the ways we can tell this is projection is to consider just how silly Keith's suspicion is. He actually believes that the arguments of a famous philosopher, someone Time Magazine listed among the world's 100 most influential people, are not going to get a fair hearing because of what some obscure guy on some obscure blog says. The only people truly vulnerable to the tactic that Keith seems very familiar with are the little people like us, those on the receiving end of Keith's "accusations."
Look Keith, I like ego-battles just as much as the next internet loudmouth. But experience has taught me that such battles are of little interest to others outside the battle and thus tend to pollute the atmosphere. This thread is not about MikeGene. MikeGene is not the topic. This thread is about one of the world's most influential ethicists. This ethicist is not entitled to a "criticism-free zone." Thus, if you wish to continue in this thread, you must restrict yourself to the questions I list below and must stay focused on the topic. Failure to do so will be interpreted as a provocative and unethical display of total disrespect for your hosts.
Here is the topic.
Fact: Peter Singer is one of the most influential ethicists alive. For example, his sense of ethics has greatly influenced the extreme animal rights movement, a movement that terrorizes scientists and universities. It has caused at least one researcher to abandon his research and one university to abandon its plans to build a new science lab.
Fact: Peter Singer has ethical ideas that he himself cannot live up to. In fact, he doesn't even come close to living up to his own ethical standards about euthanasia and donating to charities.
Given these facts, there are two questions worth exploring.
1. Why is it that Singer cannot live up to his own ethical standards?
2. If Singer himself cannot live up to his own ethical ideas, why is someone else supposed to? If we are to give Singer a pass, why aren't other people allowed a pass?
Comment by MikeGene — May 21, 2007 @ 8:56 am
May 21st, 2007 at 9:04 am
One more thing, and then I gotta run. If you want to talk about Singer's "ideas," you can also discuss his ideas about using animals in biological research.
Comment by MikeGene — May 21, 2007 @ 9:04 am
May 21st, 2007 at 10:58 am
Keiths,
You may have a point (actually I don't think you do), but you use absolutely the wrong scripture to make it. Christians are definitely supposed to judge, commanded to in effect"”the whole idea of excommunication (which is a recurring subject in the Pauline corpus) demands that we judge. In fact, you will note that right after that passage you quoted from Matthew 7 we are told not to give what is holy to dogs and not to cast pearls before swine, presupposing that we can judge some people to be like dogs and others to be like swine. And a bit later in the same chapter it tells us how to judge: by their fruits they will be known.
I agree with those who claim that diverting this to an argument about Christian hypocrisy is a cheap tactic. The issue here is clearly Singer's hypocrisy. Is he or is he not an old fraud? To this reader it's a no brainer"”the clear message his personal life sends is that his "ethics" apply only to the little people, not the best and the brightest.
Comment by David Heddle — May 21, 2007 @ 10:58 am
May 21st, 2007 at 12:08 pm
perhaps he is aware that he has been raised in an era that has already passed and feels he cannot meet his own suggestions for the betterment of society, however he chooses to suggest a better ethics so that the younger generations can take his ideas and actually live them. just a possibility.
again, i may mention that someone younger may be able to shape their desires and their life in the direction singer has suggested, while he himself is "unable" due to his set in ways. the fact that yall have brought up the hypocracy issue has given me a bit to think about, and im not sure what i feel about it. on one hand it seems that some of you are implying that he is suggesting a way of living that is impossible, since he himself cannot live up to it. on the other hand it seems to me that his hypocracy doesnt really play much into the ideas themselves, as a new generation could adopt his ideas as ethically better.
just some possibilities.
Comment by dantedanti — May 21, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 12:39 pm
dantedanti:
Hi, Dante. Your possibilities are reasonable. I think that any moral/ethical 'ideal' is possible to live, but if the philosopher doesn't even try it doesn't lend any credibility to his/her philosophy.
The desire to influence people at a young enough age that they could live the ideal is as idealistic as the un-lived ideal itself. Young people have keen BS detectors, with "do as I say, not as I do" being one of the hypocrisies they rebel against the most. Notice how radical social reformists and revolutionaries always fight for an ideal cause that, once they get political power and access to the treasury, they personally abandon. This is obviously a strong human nature issue, but there's no real reason people couldn't live the ideal.
If the promoter of ideas doesn't take them seriously, others aren't likely to take his/her ideas seriously. Singer just makes noise because he is rewarded for it (sells books, promotes controversies and gets paid to play on the tour). It's a living… §;o)
Comment by Joy — May 21, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Mike wrote:
Mike,
Don't play the victim. The point is not to distract attention from Singer, it's to focus attention where it belongs: on Singer's ideas.
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.
Not true. He applies his own standards to himself and acknowledges that he comes up short.
See my forthcoming reply to dantedanti.
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.
Do you have any evidence that Singer supports animal rights terrorism?
First, you're wrong about euthanasia. Singer does not argue that it should be mandatory; only that it is morally permissible in certain circumstances.
On the income issue, Singer acknowledges that he falls short of his own standards.
Presumably because they are difficult to live up to.
That makes no more sense than asking "If a Christian minister cannot live up to his own ethical ideas, why is someone else supposed to?"
Singer isn't asking for a pass.
Comment by keiths — May 21, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 1:57 pm
David Heddle writes:
Yes, the Bible contradicts itself on this and many other points.
I am curious, though: How do you interpret "Judge not, that ye may not be judged" (Though we should probably move this to an open rabbit thread since it is off-topic).
Nowhere does Singer say that. And if you argue that Singer's failure to live up to his own standards implies that he believes that ethics is for the "little people", then by the same argument, your own failure to live up to Christian ideals implies that Christian morality is only for the "little people". I don't think that's the message you want to send.
Comment by keiths — May 21, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 2:10 pm
keiths,
Christianity has a well established excuse built into its doctrine of original sin. That is, Paul asks who will free him from his body of death and laments that he does what he doesn't want to do (i.e., sins). Christians from day one (apart from Pelagians"”but they were declared heretics) understood that we all would fail to live up to the standards set by Christ"”indeed that is the very reason why we need a savior. The question is not even if a Christian pastor cannot live up to the standards; it's a given that he cannot. It's a feature, not a bug.
What is Singer's excuse for his inability to live up to his own standards? It seems to me that standards set in a secular humanist framework have no reason to be impossible"”there is no equivalent of original sin. While one can sadly find examples of Christian hypocrisy which can be compared with Singer, these are egregious violations"”Benny Hinn type examples"”which allow one to reasonably question the premise that the hypocrite is in fact a Christian. You try to equate, it seems to me, Singer to the routine Christian sinner"”that doesn't smell right. He is more like an apostate. I would put it that Singer is to his own standards as Fred Phelps is to Christian standards.
Comment by David Heddle — May 21, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 2:20 pm
I still can't get over the fact that I never knew that Jesus cleansed the Temple in retaliation for being struck by a money-changer. Or maybe it was a pigeon-seller. Whichever. But boy, they sure covered that up!
I expect the New Testament didn't mention it because it would cast Jesus in a bad light to have him acting in retaliation. And to be seen as a wimp. So that's probably why the Gospels covered up the fact that Jesus was a wimp who retaliated and that he spoke in English, and didn't live in an ancient Middle Eastern cultural setting, which we don't have to know anything about in order to interpret the Gospels anyway. Why, this is even worse than the Great Da Vinci Code Conspiracy! In fact, I bet he divorced Mary of Magdalene despite his own teaching against divorce so that he could live in an openly gay relationship with Judas. This discovery will rock Christanity to its foundations if not destroy it altogether!
Oh, wait… wait. Hmmm.
http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/pa....
Comment by stunney — May 21, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 2:23 pm
DH: You may have a point (actually I don't think you do), but you use absolutely the wrong scripture to make it. Christians are definitely supposed to judge, commanded to in effect"¦
The clue follows "that." Being judged accompanies wrong doing. None of us are perfect and are best advised not to judge others for that which we ourselves do. Heddle noted that Christians are commanded to judge. But that command does not stand in isolation. Paul referenced specific examples when advising that offenders be removed from a church. There are parameters that would not include certain behavoir.
"¦the clear message his personal life sends is that his "ethics" apply only to the little people, not the best and the brightest.
There is a difference. A Christian who knowingly violates moral standards is obligated to repent (part of which entails ceasing from the offensive behavoir) and a failure to do so is indeed a failure to live up to biblical standards. But how are Singer's failures assessed? They are spun by those supporting him as evidenced by some TT comments or his defenders launch attacks against Christians. Singer has not rescinded his code of ethics of which he exempts himself. Where is the rough equivalence of repentence here?
Comment by Bradford — May 21, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 2:40 pm
keiths:
If it weren't for the internet where "lists of biblical contradictions" are easy to find, I'd challenge you on that statement. It was my experience that avant-Google people who made that claim could rarely come up with "many" examples"”they were just parroting. (Note: most of the so-called contradictions are easy to answer. A few, but usually not the ones people come up with off the top of their heads, are real puzzles.)
Comment by David Heddle — May 21, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 3:24 pm
dantedanti wrote:
dantedanti,
You hit upon a couple of important points.
The function of a philosopher of ethics is to propose, justify, and criticize ethical precepts on philosophical grounds. Some of those precepts might be difficult or impossible for her to live up to. Some might be impossible for anyone to live up to. But if morality has any meaning at all, then what's right is right, regardless of how difficult it is to be righteous.
A moral philosopher who refrains from advocating moral behavior, simply because she finds it personally difficult, is not doing her job.
Regarding charges that Singer is a hypocrite: Falling short of one's ideals does not make a person a hypocrite. What makes a person a hypocrite is the act of condemning someone else for a fault that one shares. Nothing in the two articles Mike linked to suggests that Singer has done so.
You raise another important point, which is that personal ethics are profoundly influenced by societal norms. I know people who, for ethical reasons, would like to become vegetarian, but find themselves succumbing to temptation in a society where carnivory is ubiquitous.
There is nothing contradictory about such a person advocating a society in which meat-eating is rare or non-existent, thus enabling him to successfully avoid temptation and become a vegetarian.
When Singer admits that he is not giving away as much of his income as he should, but that he would start giving more once others start to do so, he is doing the same thing. He would like to live up to his standards, but he possesses a human foible — the desire not to shoulder a burden alone — that prevents him from doing so now. A society in which many affluent people gave away most of their money — in which that was the norm — would be a society in which people like Singer would find it easier to live up to their higher ideals.
Comment by keiths — May 21, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 3:39 pm
From what I recall of reading Peter Singer's Practical Ethics (several years ago, so any omissions or errors are the fault of my leaky head), his whole schtick was to take a set of very reasonable-sounding axioms–we divvy organisms into those that can't suffer, those that can suffer, and those that can think–and build a set of ethics on top of that. The result of doing this is that he pulls up some conclusions that are, to our ears, frickin' wacky–for instance, an anencephalic baby has the same rights as a clump of moss, which is to say, less than your pet dog.
Of course, "it gives me the crawling horrors" isn't exactly a response to any of his arguments; far better to point out where he errs–are anencephalic babies sapient? Are so-far-normal blastocysts capable of suffering? Are chimps capable of the level of thought we ascribe to children?
Trying to derive a set of ethics from some basic axioms will, I think, always lead to scary, scary corner cases. If someone has a counterexample, I'd be most interested.
Comment by grendelkhan — May 21, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Luke 6:29:
stunney,
In this verse, Jesus commands that if someone smites you on the left cheek, you must offer him the right cheek.
Yet according to you, this amounts to presenting yourself as your enemy's social inferior. Hardly a show of defiance.
Let's hear you spin this.
Comment by keiths — May 21, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 4:09 pm
grendelkhan writes:
Hi grendelkhan,
I agree. I haven't yet encountered a consistent moral system that didn't generate the scary corner cases you mention.
Pure utilitarianism would, under some circumstances, require the sacrifice of a person against his will to save others. Pure deontology would require us to be honest with the Nazi officer who is asking whether we are hiding Jews in our basement.
If it's universally true that axiomatic moral systems have scary consequences, then this is a fascinating fact, as it implies that our moral intuitions are fundamentally inconsistent.
To anyone who finds the topic of moral intuition interesting, I highly recommend Moral Minds by Marc Hauser.
Comment by keiths — May 21, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 4:28 pm
David Heddle wrote:
Shades of "O felix culpa!"
The fact that secular ethicists don't accept the concept of original sin hardly means that they think humans are morally perfect.
Could you be more specific? I didn't see anything in those two articles that would suggest he is an "apostate" to his own ethical standards. Do you have some independent knowledge of Singer's behavior to share with us?
I wrote:
David:
As if it were a contest to see how many contradictions a particular individual could find in the Bible.
A contradiction is a contradiction, regardless of who finds it.
Comment by keiths — May 21, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Hi Keiths,
Is it a contradiction for any governing body to replace one law with another over time?
Or for a particular law to be further developed and more fulfilled over time?
When you compare that law from its earlier stage to its later, more complete stage.
Comment by Doug — May 21, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 5:20 pm
keiths,
Geez Louise, the old fraud argues that the wealthy are murderers and yet keeps 80% of what is surely (even after giving away 20%) a 99th percentile income. And he took extraordinary measures in the instance of his mother's illness. His apostasy definitely rivals that of Phelps. Although, unlike Phelps, I would concede that Singer's apostasy results in an improvement. At least, it appears, it allowed him to care for his mother.
Comment by David Heddle — May 21, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Doug, secular law doesn't hold itself to be infallible. You're not honestly comparing the Bible to secular law, right? Right?
Comment by grendelkhan — May 21, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 5:40 pm
[Emphases added]
I'm still frankly marvelling at the discovery by zero noted New Testament scholars that in cleansing the Temple of commerce, Jesus was violating his own teaching against violent retaliation, given that zero noted New Testament scholars have now discovered, by an extraordinarily obvious error of reasoning that Jesus in fact must have been reacting to a slap from one of the moneychangers, because zero noted New Testament scholars know that this must have been a clear case of Jesus's hypocrisy.
Okay, maybe it was a pigeon-seller who hit Jesus, provoking Jesus into violating his own ethics by giving his assailant a tremendous, enraged fist-pummeling.
Either way, it is now certain that zero noted New Testament scholars have now conclusively proven that Jesus didn't live up to the ethical standards he preached regarding violent retaliation. Having been struck on the face by a moneychanger or pigeon-seller (which is clearly mentioned no fewer than zero times in the Gospel accounts), Jesus lashed out in violent retaliation by physically striking a number of people engaged in commercial activity—an established fact which is mentioned no fewer than zero times in the Gospel accounts. This proves that Jesus, having been struck on the right cheek by a moneychanger (as the Gospel clearly indicates in no fewer than zero verses), responded by beating the crap out of four peaceful pigeon sellers, leaving their bodies in a crumpled heap of blood, black eyes, and broken bones—-a fact which is not only mentioned zero times in the Gospel accounts, but has been established in the deranged thinking of at least one 'bright', thus proving by that same nutjob logic that Jesus acted hypocritically in the Temple.
Comment by stunney — May 21, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Avoiding the question? Right? Right?
Comment by Doug — May 21, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Let's not get worked up too much about what mythical figures like Jesus or Robin Hood did or did not do, shall we?
Comment by Raevmo — May 21, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Keiths, none of us do the right thing all the time. Those you defend are not passive in the matter of criticizing others. Public discussions are characterized by criticism of ideas and as well as those who present them, particularly when behavoiral inconsistency is demonstrated. Are you arguing that TT cannot critique those you mentioned while they are free to say pretty much anything they wish?
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.
Comment by Bradford — May 21, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Raevmo wrote:
Or like bright 'brights'.:lol:
Comment by stunney — May 21, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 6:29 pm
stunney:
Wait a minute. Are you saying that 'brights' aren't bright?!? Sir/Madam, what's your evidence to support that outrageous statement?
Comment by Raevmo — May 21, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Raevmo wrote:
Raevmo, there is no scientific evidence that the property being mentally bright is instantiated among 'brights'. It's a superfluous notion, as unecessary as all mental properties, to the doing of science. Sure, it's possible that some 'brights' are mentally bright. It's possible that there are atheist fairies as well. But both hypotheses are devoid of empirical content, as things stand today.
Nous n'avons pas besoin de cette hypothese-la.
Comment by stunney — May 21, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 7:07 pm
le stunney:
Alors, les brights, ils sont les dieux. Nous sommes d'accord.
Comment by Raevmo — May 21, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 7:10 pm
It seems definitely true that brights are bright now with the invention of compact fluro lights.
Now the 20 watts their brains put out can be put to actual use lighting a whole room properly.
Surely better than all the writing they do.
Comment by thesciphishow — May 21, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Doug wrote:
Hi Doug,
The Biblical contradictions I'm talking about are by no means limited to the Law.
Comment by keiths — May 21, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 8:14 pm
David Heddle wrote:
David,
Singer is a utilitarian. That means that to him, there is no difference between killing someone and knowingly allowing him to die.
Suppose that, for a couple hundred dollars, the Red Cross can save a Sudanese refugee from dying. You have $1200 that you've saved for a 42" plasma TV. Do you buy the new TV, or stick with your old one and give the money to the Red Cross? The choice is stark: buy the TV, and six refugees die; forgo the TV and they live. To a pure utilitarian, buying the TV amounts to murdering six people — you've knowingly made a choice which results in six deaths.
That makes almost all of us murderers from a utilitarian perspective, and so calling Singer a "murderer" does not have the heinous apostate ring you think it does. You might as well say that all Christians are apostates because they've lied at some point in their lives.
Comment by keiths — May 21, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 8:24 pm
stunney,
Did you think that if you made your comment long enough, with certain phrases in bold, that we wouldn't notice that you completely failed to answer this question?
Comment by keiths — May 21, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Hi keiths,
You wrote:
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.
Comment by chunkdz — May 21, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 9:13 pm
chunkdz wrote:
And your basis for this assertion would be?
Comment by keiths — May 21, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Bradford wrote:
True enough (although I can't recall arguing otherwise).
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?"
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.
Comment by keiths — May 21, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Hi Keith,
That's much better. So let's get to the arguments.
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:
"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:
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?
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.
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.
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:
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:
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?
Comment by MikeGene — May 21, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Keiths
Because he spends the money on himself?
Or don't you think we should judge a tree by the fruit that it bears?
Comment by chunkdz — May 21, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
May 21st, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Zero noted New Testament scholars have shown that Luke 6:29 proves that Jesus spoke about what to do if someone struck you on the left cheek—-you should offer him your right cheek. And that's because, as has clearly been shown to be the case, that verse has Jesus mentioning the left cheek no fewer than zero times, which I think all 'brights' among us can agree is overwhelming evidence that Jesus was indisputably referring to the left cheek, since, as every New Testament scholar knows, and as was already indicated in the quoted material I mentioned earlier, the left hand was simply not used to deliver insulting slaps to social inferiors. Only the back of the right hand was so used. So the left cheek would not in practice have been the target of an insulting blow inflicted by a supposed social superior.
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.
Comment by stunney — May 21, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:27 am
stunney,
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?
Comment by keiths — May 23, 2007 @ 4:27 am
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:29 am
Mike,
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?
Comment by keiths — May 23, 2007 @ 4:29 am
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:11 am
Hi Keith,
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.
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.
Comment by MikeGene — May 23, 2007 @ 7:11 am
May 24th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
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.
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 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.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — May 24, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
John,
You don't make a lot of sense when you get emotional.
JOHN_A_DESIGNER wrote:
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.
Only in your fevered imagination.