>***** It _may_ be the case that members of the underrepresented group
>are, _on average_, less gifted for the kind of study one must do to become
>a doctor. I am not saying that this is true, or even probable, but it
>cannot be ruled out at this stage. (_Practical Ethics_ 46) *****
>
>Singer argues that whether there are genetically determined differences in
>intelligence between races and sexes is a matter of empirical studies.
I agree he's implying that much, but he's quite explicitly saying he doubts that a statistically significant distinction is likely.
>Therefore, he perpetuates the myth that race is a scientifically valid
>concept in studies of heredity and intelligence.
I think he's doing that, too, yeah.
>The principle of "equal consideration of interests" ("a minimal principle
>of equality in the sense that it does not dictate equal treatment," p. 23)
>that Singer elaborates in the second chapter of _Practical Ethics_ titled
>"Equality and Its Implications" is built on the assumption that such racial
>and sexual differences in intellect may in fact exist. In other words, his
>view on racial and sexual differences informs the kind of equality that
>Singer thinks is defensible. If he didn't think the idea of genetically
>determined racial & sexual differences in intellect were valid, he could
>argue for a different -- perhaps more robust -- conception of equality.
>For instance, unlike Carl, Singer emphatically does not argue for "an equal
>*outcome* society." Singer's notion of equality is a paternalistic one:
>blacks may be in fact _on average_ genetically inferior to whites in
>intelligence, but it doesn't mean that they are morally inferior, nor does
>it mean that "we" shouldn't try our best to help "them" develop to the best
>of their abilities. Singer _is_ a strong supporter of affirmative action,
>but, as Rakesh says, with friends like this....
I just don't understand why people are so cross! The world's full of tendentious categories and uncritical empiricism - at least Singer tells us he's found no evidence in these categories and statistics that proves anything to him! Credit where it's due!
And I don't think Singer is being paternalistic. He's just saying that the category of 'intelligence' is not a morally interesting one. If I knew what intelligence was, infact, even though I don't, I'd be more than inclined to agree.
Singer's not about analysing the ideology of 'population' and its categories, and obviously isn't concerning himself with an historical materialist critique of empiricism. This annoys the leftie materialist rationalist in me, too, but it does not detract from the fact that he argues well (and agreeably - at least here) from the premises he (and most of the western world) assumes.
Cheers, Rob.