Mick wrote:Never mind.

Bribase wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:

Matt_B wrote:Or, better still, read Practical Ethics

Oddly enough, I was reading this when you posted that. It doesn't make any of what he says seem any better. I've had to go away for a while to think about what I find so disturbing in his writing on this subject, (and I'm definitely pro-choice and pro voluntary euthanasia) and I think it's the fact that he always uses the words 'kill' and 'killing'. For instance he never ever mentions anything about the infants he thinks we should be allowed to consider disposing of (in his perfect utilitarian world) being 'allowed to die' in the cases where medical intervention keeps them alive. In the case of spina bifida he uses the phrase 'helped to die', but he still means killed.

It's all so cold and clinical, as though he's determined to ignore everything about us that actually makes us human. Yet he's such a valiant supporter of animal rights. It doesn't make sense.

Edit to add: I've just noticed that the title of that excerpt is 'Taking Life'. I wonder who he thinks we would appoint to do his killing for him? Who should be the 'taker of life'?

I'm really not trying to be rude here but it seems a bit like you're not aware of how one should read philosophy. Again, I don't know your background well and I'm not trying to insult you here.

Philosophy, at least in my understanding is a forum in which such difficult questions and propositions can be asked and formed without fear of reprisal for saying something tasteless or seemingly uncaring. What you see as Singer being cold and clinical I take as him being rigorous in his thinking.

What you need to do, instead of dismissing his theses because they arrive at the wrong conclusions to you is to consider what might be wrong with his reasoning. And, if you can't find any fault in his reasoning, what is it about your moral intuitions that leads you to think him incorrect? The point is, Singer is not in the process of pushing new legislation on the treatment of human and non-human animals. What he is in the business of doing is making us ask pertinent questions about our ethics and what it is about us that makes us entitled to life when other animals with similar faculties are not. If he is to be taken seriously his thesis could just as easily afford non-human animals greater rights as they could clarify what it is about human life that makes us entitled to live out our lives regardless of our capacities as people. Peter Singer's tone is irrelevant, his reasoning what is important.

The point is, Singer is not in the process of pushing new legislation on the treatment of human and non-human animals.

Mick wrote:What I am proposing is that shrunk should consider whether is view is best understood as a non-cognitive a view

Mick wrote:Or it might just be that those who listen do not have the background knowledge to appreciate what is being said.

Thommo wrote:Interesting hypothesis, do you find that professional philosophers are more swayed by these arguments as would be the case were it true? I'd have to say that it doesn't appear to be that way to me after all, a higher proportion of philosophers are atheist than among the general population, for example, despite the lack of good disproofs of a god.

Spinozasgalt wrote:Is it possible this is a joke? There's something a bit too ironic about charging others with intellectual dishonesty in an article as poorly argued as that.

Thommo wrote:

Mick wrote:Or it might just be that those who listen do not have the background knowledge to appreciate what is being said.

Interesting hypothesis, do you find that professional philosophers are more swayed by these arguments as would be the case were it true? I'd have to say that it doesn't appear to be that way to me after all, a higher proportion of philosophers are atheist than among the general population, for example, despite the lack of good disproofs of a god.