I understand why many would oppose Singer. Except for the basic intuition that human welfare and happiness should be maximised, Singer is quite unfazed when his utiltiarian outlook comes into conflict with positions that seem intuitively evident. For example that infanticide is morally wrong. That is is morally wrong to make distinctions concerning the value of lives. And so on. He incurs not only the wrath of conservatives, but of liberals and leftists of many stripes. This has propelled him into the spotlight. It is rather surprising in a way. He is not either original or a great theorist and by his own admission.. If you really want to study the philosophical issue of infanticide a much more thorough treatment is to be found in authors such as Michael Tooley in his book ABORTION AND INFANTICIDE. Singer has somehow managed to bring issues such as animal rights, equity, world hunger, an into the public eye. Whatever his faults he has always tried to discuss these issues in intelligbile terms and to give reasoned arguments for his positions. I wish there were more intellectuals like him. Of course, there is much that he says that I disagree with.
I cant find the source but I recall that at one meeting in Germany, disabled activists had people in wheelchairs go on stage to disrupt his speech. Singer ended up talking to some of them and some actually came to appreciate his position and a couple apparently even agreed with him and felt that they had been unfairly used to disrupt his talk. This is not to say that there are not passages in Practical Ethics and elsewhere that can not be ripped out of context to make Singer look like a Nazi eugenicist.
I am surprised at some of the reaction. A right=wing opponent actually got SInger's phone number at Princeton and was amazed when she phoned that Singer answered. What does she do? Publishes it, so that all her groupies can harrass the man. No dooubt he will soon make himself unavailable. Singer's mother has Alzheimer's disease. He spends oodles of money on her care. When questioned about it SInger said that his mother having that condition has made him realise that these situations are more complex than he had realised. Of course his opponents do not applaud his openness and candor. They say his philosophy cannot be any good if he doesnt follow it. No discussion of arguments at all. Singer even though he is a consistent vegetarian in line with his animal rights views, only gives 20 per cent of his income to charity. Since he makes more than 30,000 still and there are starving people he must on his own theory be a murderer by letting people starve around the world, and yes he hypocritically looks after his mother when she must be approaching non-personhood. What a terrible guy!
CHeers, Ken Hanly
----- Original Message ----- From: Rob Schaap <rws at comedu.canberra.edu.au> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 7:52 PM Subject: Re: Beeson & Singer/ prenatal diagnosis
> Some beaut posts, Ken.
>
> I think Marta is, like all of us, prone to group think at times. I think
> Singer a good man and an impressive philosopher, but there's certainly a
> group response to the man afoot in the US, who represent his views very
> poorly indeed, to my mind (why not actually read him - I mean, the bloke
is
> a very readable writer), I agree that Marta's position on abortion and
> euthanasia just don't add up, and I think the Netherlands has a better
> health system, more manifest respect for human life, and a healthier
> attitude to the inevitable than America does. So calling it the 'New
> Killing Fields' is absolutely scandalous
>
> Marta writes:
>
> >Who the fuck is Peter Singer to tell me anything?
>
> Well, he's telling you what he reckons. He's not speaking for anyone.
> That's the public intellectual's role, I reckon. Have a good think, and
> put your thoughts out there. Nothing arrogant about it. In fact, I think
> Marta comes closer to presuming to speak for and at others than Peter
does.
>
> Sorry Marta,
> Rob.
>
>