Talk:Peter Singer/Archive 1

More on Singer's ethics needed

I thnk the articles needs a more detailed explanation of Singer's ethic. I don't kow his work, but I think his ethic is logical consequence of some principles (for example, ethics must be as much universal as possible).

Go ahead. You can edit that page right now!

Singer is in/famous also for arguing that human children up to 30 days old should potentially be subject to euthanasia if keeping them alive creates extreme hardship for themselves, parents, or society.

Speciesm?

"He almost single-handedly jump-started the [animal rights]? movement ... in which he argues against what he calls 'speciesm'..."

Google gives 3,00 hits for "speciesism" and 103 for "speciesm". Therefore changing the spelling in the entry.

"Towards a Darwinian Left"?

Isn't Peter Singer also the author of "Towards a Darwinian Left"?

Isn't he currently head of bioethics at the University of Toronto?

He is the author of "Darwinian Left" (pretty obvious boring stuff though, at least for Darwinian leftists :-)) and he is at Princeton, not Toronto. AxelBoldt 01:06 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

There's another Peter Singer working at Toronto. He usually writes under 'Peter A. Singer', to distinguish himself from his Princetonian namesake. Ironically, Singer's second name is Albert, and so 'Peter A. Singer' could also stand for the name of the author of Animal Liberation. But actually Singer never uses his second name.Sir Paul 02:28, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

"He wishes to kill [infants]" not NPOV

I very much doubt that "disabled infants he wishes to kill" could be classed as NPOV. To my knowledge Singer has never expressed a wish to kill anyone. He has argued that in certain circumstances it is ethical to kill disabled infants, which is not the same thing. Adam 14:27, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Peter Singer upsets me

I am upset by Singer's views (which I have read outside of this article.) He thinks it is Ok to kill sick babies, sick old people, and to have sex animals, yet there is barely any criticism of him at all in this article. I can say with near certainty that 99% of Americans would want this man behind bars. Considering such extremist views (many of which would land him in jail if he practiced what he preached), the lack of presenting an opposing point of view in this article is a derelection of our POV policy. RK 15:03, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

Whoa, that makes an ad hominem argument (based on lies) and an argument from popularity in just one paragraph. I'm quite certain that Peter Singer does practice what he preached - i.e. that he really does not consume animal products as far as this is practicable. Whether that should land him in jail is another issue - a militant vegan-hater like you might think so, but presently there are no laws against it in any industrialized country I'm aware of.

While you are certainly FUBAR (substitute "redemption" for R), I recommend that people genuinely interested in Singer's views should read Animal Liberation instead of all the lies and disinformation about it that the likes of you love to sputter. If people don't want to pay for the book, they should still find it possible to borrow it from a library or someone interested in the topic of animal ethics. If people don't want to do any of this, they are well advised to just shut up about Singer. Aragorn2 10:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of links to criticism linked to at the bottom of the page, though I've read them, and all beg the question and are thus very weak. The opinions of the public are not considered relevant in a philosophical ethical debate, and so to state that a lot of people dont like what he says would not be considered a criticism, and as yet there are no real philosophical oppositions to his claims, only emotional/religious ones. Therefore the lack of opposing points is due to their not being many of a philosophical nature, and thus the article is not POV

Opposition

Danny, please stop writing incorrecy statements. Pete Singer is not opposed only by right-wing Christian right-to-lifers. That is a dishonest thing to imply. The strong criticisms of his position come from humanists, Jews, Muslims, Christians and people who are against cruelty to animals, and from people who are against murdering 27 day old sick babies. When you reframe this as a debate between him and right-to-lifers, you are being disingenuous. RK 15:39, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

RK. You have long ago made the point that you are an idiot. No need to hammer it home any further. As for my changes in the article, Christian, Muslim, and Jewish groups are indeed "religious" groups. Why do you insist on saying Jewish twice? Yes, they criticize his conclusions. Why is it necessary to include the word immoral twice? Are you afraid people won't get that point either? Your choice of language--killing babies, for instance--is a gross misrepresentation of the man's beliefs. Adding a dozen links as to why he is "wrong" while bringing just one group that supports him is POV because it lacks balance. Telling me to "get control" over myself because you disagreed with an edit I made lacks the slightest hint of "Wiki etiquette." Writing "killing babies and fucking animals" on the Recent Changes page is simply gross. Claiming that I deny religious groups condemn him is simply wrong. I made that point in each edit. Fortunately, I do not expect more from you. Danny 15:52, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Uh, I am not the one who says it it might be Ok for humans to f___ animals. Peter Singer does, and so does the president of PETA. Your disgust at me, and not them, is unjustified. Don't let your disagreements with me warp your understanding of which people are promoting these horrific positions. RK

The article as it stands clearly states Singers position, then clearly states that there are many people who find his views odious and unacceptable. Adding hysterical comments and tabloid style headings doesn't help create an NPOV encyclopedia article, and we arn't stupid you know. I don't have to be shouted at and hectored to realise that Singers views on euthenasia and inter-species sex are bonkers quercus robur

RK - Having extremist views is not a reason to be put behind bars. What do your 99% of Americans think about freedom of speech? Dankelleher

OH! RK got TOLD!

Just out of interest, before you all decided Singer's conclusions were 'bonkers', did any of you read his arguments? They come out of utilitarianism, and frankly they seem pretty sound. So, while I, and I'm sure he would not enjoy having sex with a (consenting) animal, can you suggest a philosophical reason why not within the confines of utilitarian ethics?

Incidentally, many countries don't have legal provisions (never had them or dropped them) against sex with animals apart from normal cruelty laws insofar they apply. Personally, I think having sex with a "consenting" non-human animal (whatever that means in this respect) is gross, but there are other gross things that are not considered immoral or even illegal. Aragorn2 12:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Questionable sentences and more

• He holds the interests of all beings which are capable of suffering to be worthy of equal consideration (Reading this, I want to know how PS defines suffer. Does a fish suffer? and a jellyfish? I'd like an explanation.) gbog
  • Although I don't know exactly how he defines it, I would surmise that suffering to PS requires an appropriately developed and powerful brain. In the same way that a dog and a newborn can neither "understand that [they] have a past and a future" (The President of Good and Evil, p. 42) and consequently may not merit our absolute protection, there is evidence that many animals simply lack the brain capacity to feel pain and therefore cannot suffer (see this article, for example). Timbo
    • It might help to distinguish the philosophical question from the empirical one. Singer's position as a philosopher is quite clear: anything that can suffer deserves ethical consideration. The empirical question of what can suffer is one for the scientists to answer, not the philosophers. Incidentally, Singer's position on that point is that since he doesn't know which animals can and cannot suffer, he gives them all the benefit of the doubt and doesn't eat any of them. Markalexander100 05:12, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

FWIW you won't find many philosophers agreeing that the question of which animals suffer is a scientific one. Any more than that scientists can or will discover what conscious experience is (even though conscious experience presumably has something to do with the brain). It's primarily a philosophical issue, not a scientific one. Ben Finn 12:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting comment, but in my opinion as flawed as the one it responds to. Science as it is today is rather clueless concerning the hard problem of consciousness. However, if we accept that sentience is part of reality (otherwise, why should we care at all whether other beings are sentient or not), then it's presence or absence in a given being definitely is a scientific issue. David Olivier 15:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Since the unborn, infants and severely disabled people lack the latter (but not the former) ability (NOTE This assumption only considers a human perspective and gives no thought to the possbility of an alternate intelligence of the human or prehuman entity described, which, in itself is contrary to his underlying argument), he states that abortion and painless infanticide and euthanasia can be justified in certain circumstances (This uppercase NOTE shows that there likely is a better way to explain that.) gbog

• Singer's position has been vigorously attacked by religious groups, right-to-life supporters, and advocates for disabled people. (I guess that ethical groups have also attacked PS position.) gbog

• Singer's fundamental principles are shared by many philosophers (I'd like to know which philosophers and I doubt they are so numerous.) gbog

• Singer laments the injustice... and give money to UNICEF and Singer served as chair of philosophy... (Why the Hell are those paragraphs under Criticism?) gbog

• Singer's views on inter-species sexual relationships chapter (imo, should be moved before Criticis) gbog

Quote removal

I removed irrelevant and/or possibly apocriphal quotes, regrouped some oddly-placed paragraphs, deleted enormous list of anti-Singer sites (especially given that there's not a single pro-Singer article), and NPOVed a few passages.

I'm not entirely happy with my proposed categorization, though it will hopefully be less arbitrary than the previous one.

It would be nice to expand the article with more detailed discussion covering what Singer said in books such as Democracy and Disobedience, The Expanding Circle, One World, and The President of Good and Evil, as well as extending the treatment of the issues covered in Practical Ethics. As it stands, the entry seems little more than an excuse to ventilate the disgust that Singer's views provoke in certain people. Sir Paul 00:11, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because removing all anti-Singer sites is too much, and I wasn't able to correctly diff your other edits. (All in red because of a line added in the beg.) I agree that many edits are needed on the page, though. gbog 05:01, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The anti-Singer links are completely out of place. This should be primarily an entry on the views of a philosopher, not a platform for people to attack them. What would you say if the entry on Bertrand Russell was filled with links to sites condemning his views on nudity, atheism or premarital sex? This hysterical abuse of Wikipedia just damages the image of an otherwise excellent resource, and as such should be firmly resisted. Sir Paul 02:23, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the anti-Singer links list could be a little bit more balanced. Btw, please don't compare Russel and Singer, stop kidding me :) gbog

You are missing the point of the comparison. It is not necessary to grant that Singer is a philosopher of the stature of Russell to acknowledge that if anti-Russell links are unacceptable in the Russell article, so are anti-Singer ones in his.Sir Paul 06:30, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree, sorry. I don't think Russel is as controversial as Singer, that why the comparison doesn't match. Take Heidegger. I would be horrified if WP didn't tell anything about bad sides of his thought and acts, wouldn't you ? gbog 12:11, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Let's take the Heideggerian example. I would say that his Nazi views merit one additional external link -- and note we are talking about Nazism. Interestingly enough, after writing this last sentence I actually went to the Heidegger article and discovered that there are four external links, only one of them dealing with his ties to National Socialism. So my proposal is this: either leave the Princeton Students Against Infanticide link, which was in the article before the inclusion of the anti-Singer links, or choose another site that you consider representative of those opposed to Singer. Sir Paul 00:05, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Reversion debate

Gbog, don't revert without considering my reasons for deletion. Your addition is confusing and badly worded, is not integrated to the rest of the article, and adds little if anything to the long list of criticisms made earlier. Sir Paul 00:16, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, my little addition is confusing, badly worded and not perfectly integrated, so feel free to refactor it. If you show me where in the article it is said that Singer's "uneuphemistic" conclusions shows clearly the limits of utilitarism and consequentalism to any human being that wouldn't agree with infanticide or disabled killing (even if painless), I will also agree that my add is redundant and should be removed. gbog 04:39, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean when you ask me to point "where in the article it is said that Singer's "uneuphemistic" conclusions show clearly the limits of utilitarianism and consequentialism to any human being that wouldn't agree with infanticide or disabled killing". I read the sentence several times, but still don't get it. Please rephrase it, and I'll do my best to answer you. Sir Paul 05:26, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, my English is far from perfect. I hope you can forgive me. The thing I wish to add in article is this one : Singer take utilitarism and drive it to it's natural conclusions or consequences, like allowing painless infanticide, (pseudo) eugenism, bestiality and so on. Therefore, from an anti-utilitarist point of view (that you may have guessed I share), Singer's work is a good thing, because it shows that utilitarist ethic is not able to prevent us from those evil things, and shows that we need a more efficient kind of ethic. Stated in another way, if I were a convinced utilitarist, I would hate Singer's work and do my best to prove that his conclusions are wrongly deduced from utilitarian axioms, because there are few things that I don't want to be allowed by the ethical system I believe in. Do I explaim myself clearly enough? gbog 10:39, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think so. But to be honest I think your criticism is too subtle and infrequent to merit inclusion in an article that does not even deal with Singer's own views on many issues. Remember, also, that our purpose should be to expose the current state of the question, not to add our own viewpoints on it. What you say may be relevant for a paper about Singer, but not for an encylopedia that should aim to cover the most important and / or frequent objections to Singer's ethical system. Sir Paul 03:15, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

You know, objections against utilitarism (and its "strong" interpretations as Singer's) are not very new nor very "infrequent. Most confucianists and daoists have already spoken against Mohism (Chinese utilitarism, aborted) in -200. In contimental Europe, utilitarism is something that only few people would adopt. The hardest point for Germans is that utilitarism isn't able to forbid eugenism. I our article, this point is only mentioned, and I would like to know what is the real answer (something like "read the books" is not enough). In short, the article don't go deep in debate on Singer's ideas and it could. When you say that my critics is too subtle, it's flattering for me, but not for other readers that are probably much more intelligent than you suppose them to be. gbog 04:49, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That utilitarianism is unpopular in Europe is completely irrelevant. It is also unpopular in my country (Argentina), but so what? It is also irrelevant that your objection has been often leveled against utilitarianism. We are talking about the philosophy of Peter Singer here, and in that context the objection is very infrequent --and certainly not frequent enough to have become established as one of the standard objections against Singer that a reputable encyclopedia like Wikipedia would want to incorporate. This is not a place to settle, let alone initiate, a controversy: it is a place to report the usual ones. Sir Paul 05:27, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure to understand you. Except if, for you, an article in a reputable encyclopedia is to state nothing more than "P. Singer is an australian utilitarianist who wrote controversed books", I don't see why the fact that many people disagree (and why) couldn't be written here in a certain level of details, with the answers to objections that the author and his defenders may have given. My main goal is to know more about Singer's ideas (that's my first reaction when I read the article: I want to know more, I want theis article to say more, for example I want to know why killing disabled is not eugenism). My little addition was intended to spark off answers that would be good meat to add. I see that it didn't work very well and we got into a meta-discussion on whether or not to include this little thing... gbog 14:11, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Issues with Singer's mom

Just wanted to question the section about Singer's mother. According to a BBC interview broadcast (most recently) last night (29 June 2004), his mother was not euthanised because a decision was made among Singer's siblings. Singer said that had it been purely his decision, he would have chosen euthanasia. I don't know how well this fits in with previous statements he may have made, but perhaps those previous statements don't give the full picture. Dankelleher 11:37, 30 June 2004 (UTC)

Trimming and bestiality

I've pruned some of the discussion, bearing in mind that this is a place for describing Singer's views and the criticism of them, not for us to debate those views.

I'm very suspicious of the comment that These views themselves [on bestiality] are regarded as criminal in a few legal systems. Can anyone give a source/be more specific? It seems very unlikely to me that a hypothetical comment such as Singer's would be illegal in itself. Markalexander100 08:25, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, hearing music or (for a woman) having one's bare hands exposed in public was regarded as criminal under the Taliban. So there may well be some legal systems that have Orwellian criminal provisions against such "thought crimes". Aragorn2 13:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Bestiality

It is my view that this bestiality section is inappropriate to the current state of the article. The article is not long enough for the inclusion of what is a brief comment in relation to the entire body of Singer's work.

LegCircus 01:29, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

I entirely agree that the article is not long enough. The solution is to write something more. Markalexander100 05:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

POV sentence removed

I removed the comment "(Of course he feels in a position to deem what the "benefit" is. The benefit for who?)" in the section "Animal liberation" and replaced it with "Due to the subjectivity of the term "benefit", controversy exists about this and his other views." I thought the old comment was very encocyclopaedic and POV. Feel free to change my sentence.--capnez 21:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rights vs utilitarianism

I've restored the sentence about Singer not supporting animal rights, with the word "rights" emphasised. Singer's philosophy, like that of any utilitarian, is that animals (and humans) don't have "rights", but that utilitarian considerations mean that they ought to be treated in certain ways. It's perhaps still not as clear as it could be, but Singer himself makes the distinction and I think it's worth retaining here. --Andrew Norman 22:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest wording like: don't have "rights" except as derived from a principle of utility.

In this he would be like Mill, who recognizes rights as secondary principles, derived from his principle of utility. (Mill, from Ch 1 of On Liberty: "It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right as a thing independent of utility.")

The wording of our article as it stands is misleading. In fact it produces incoherence when combined with the paragraphs that follow, which state or at least imply that for Singer animals have a right to physical integrity. But then they have rights! Also in Animal Liberation he criticizes Thomas Taylor for pouring scorn on the idea that brutes have rights.

Rights needn't be non-utilitarian rights, though of course there are such (kantian, libertarian, etc.). I think Andrew Norman is concerned to distinguish Singer's position on animals from non-utilitarian theories of animal rights. Maybe a sentence or two could be added on that? Rats 16:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Singer believes that animals should be given rights and protections in law, but I'm not sure he says anywhere that they have moral rights, whether as subjects-of-a-life (well, definitely not that for Singer) or in any derivative sense. It's a long time since I read Animal Liberation though, so maybe I've just forgotten him saying that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Middle names

David, can you show me where it says we have to start with people's full names? I've only rarely seen it, and it always looks peculiar. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:40, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean "I've only rarely seen it"? I haven't seen a single biographical article where middle names of the subject were known but not included. We've just had an interesting discussion on Talk:Tony Blair where the issue was whether the word 'Tony' should be in the lead para at all - the consensus was it should not, because the page title is enough. All other encyclopaedias begin their articles with peoples' full names. Why do you want to remove this information? What's so damaging to a good quality encyclopaedia to include it? I really am mystified by this. David | Talk 1 July 2005 08:31 (UTC)

I think it looks a bit silly. If he had six middle names, would you include them all? If it's policy, I'll certainly go along with it; and I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I've never seen any such rule or guideline, so please direct me to it. I'm not sure Tony Blair is a good example as he's a statesman; I've never seen a WP biography of a non-statesman where middle names are included, unless they use their middle names themselves, but again, if I'm wrong about that, I'll be happy to have learned something and concede to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 1, 2005 08:40 (UTC)

Yes, I would include all names. As for no other non-statesman biogs, have a look at Benjamin Mountfort "Benjamin Woolfield Mountfort", Linus Pauling "Linus Carl Pauling", Noam Chomsky "Avram Noam Chomsky", Chuck Palahniuk "Charles Michael "Chuck" Palahniuk", Louis Armstrong "Louis Daniel Armstrong", Richard Feynman "Richard Phillips Feynman" or Suzanne Lenglen "Suzanne Rachel Flore Lenglen". These are all featured articles. If you find any article which does not include the full name when known then you should add it. There certainly used to be a statement in the style guide which required full names; it may have been dropped accidentally but it most clearly is policy. You haven't answered my question as to what use it would serve to eliminate them. David | Talk 1 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)

There's definitely nothing wrong with having the complete name appear in the intro sentence, and it doesn't make sense to me to completely leave this information out of an article. If you really think it looks so odd, you could include the information further down in the article, but it seems to me that would merely require a more detailed explanation (like a full sentence or two), and just draw more attention to it. I suggest leaving it as is. —Michael Z. 2005-07-8 07:07 Z

It's similar to the format the Oxford DNB uses - for example, Russell, Bertrand Arthur William, third Earl Russell (1872-1970), Ayer, Sir Alfred Jules [Freddie] (1910-1989), MacNeice, (Frederick) Louis (1907-1963). I know the latter wasn't a philosopher, but it shows how unused first names are handled. --Andrew Norman 8 July 2005 08:54 (UTC)

Other views

I've just created this section. It's my first addition to Wikipedia, and I'd welcome comments.

Further to earlier discussion, I'm strongly of the opinion that the section "Views on inter-species relationships" should be largely or entirely deleted. Since most of Singer's books aren't even mentioned, it seems wrong to devote a large paragraph to a short review which Singer has not elaborated or commented upon since. --Kingbot 16:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, so I've shortened it. Ben Finn 12:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Just reverted to delete a false addition. Nowhere does Singer claim that haemophilia is a severe disability. --Kingbot 07:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Metaethics

This is a welcome addition to the page, but the criticism needs to be sourced. "Critics have responded" isn't enough, and I question the cogency of the argument that follows. --Kingbot 10:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I sourced the criticism to a book which also has an extensive bibliography. I don't think the argument is confusing, so I'm curious where you think it falters. All it says in response to Singer is the following: granted, it might be convenient or expedient to consider interests equally when negotiating with reasoning beings in your own community; that's just how you get them to cooperate with you. But how does this imply some much broader principle of equality? Singer wants to deduce a philosophical absolute from an empirical fact about the way societies organize, and the way he does this is by (very deftly) moving from a qualified hypothetical imperative: "if you want this, do that" -- to a categorical imperative: "always do that." This is a logical mistake, and that's the thrust of the criticism. --Ben golub 20:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll read the Binmore book at some point, but if you've got him right I think he's wrong about this. (It's interesting that Binmore is an economist, not a philosopher.) What Singer suggests is that

(a) morality originated as a cooperative practice in primitive groups, within which each members interests were treated impartially; (b) through reason we come to realise that, from an impartial point of view, there is no reason to favour the interests of one particular group over others; (c) thinking this way "expands the circle" of beings whose interests we consider impartially to all sentient creatures.

Plenty to question or criticise there, but no attempted bridging of the "is/ought" gap. The entire thesis is empirical speculation backed up by some sociobiological and psychological findings. Singer does not lift the impartiality principle out of context, but instead suggests that that is what human beings have done. The closest thing to a philosophical claim is (b), which is essentially that reason necessarily leads us to the Sidgwickian intuition that "from the point of view of the universe", there is no reason to aim at my own good rather than good generally. This is still an empirical claim, but one for which the only evidence is individual intuition. So I agree that the argument is not strong, but not for the reason you suggest.--Kingbot 23:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I think our disagreement, to the extent that it exists, is about the kind of "ought" Singer is offering. After reading a lot of his work, it feels to me that he does believe the utilitarian mandate to consider interests equally is a moral absolute of some numinous kind; (apparently Singer likes Kant, according to people who have discussed it with him). The way he wants to get us to buy this is to first sell the "impartial standpoint" in small-community questions, which he does through perfectly legitimate empirical observations about the way cohesive groups resolve conflicts. Then he points out that analogous impartiality on a bigger scale shows "there is no reason to favour the interests of one particular group over others", as you summarize it. Binmore and I would go along with this. But note that his final claim is stronger. He says we ought to have equal concern for all human beings (since the analogous ought held in small communities). This is some sneaky ought, because the analogous small-community ought was a pragmatic imperative -- you ought to be impartial because unfair behavior will make you unpopular in your group, which has power over you. The analogous large-scale ought springs from no such pragmatism -- after all, many of those whom we oppress are powerless against us. So what kind of ought is this, and how does it get justified?

To put it in a slightly different way: Since Singer concludes we ought to have equal consideration for everyone, the burden is on him to show us how he gets to this ought. We may agree with Singer that from this large-scale impartial standpoint of the universe, we are all equal. Now the question is: how do we get from the standpoint of the universe to an ought that actually directs behavior? That's the part I think he never explains, just sliding in the out of context pragmatic ought from the small-community argument.

What do you think? --Ben golub 07:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Just wrote a lengthy reply only for my computer to crash...

Singer suggests in The Expanding Circle and elsewhere some ways in which the "standpoint of the universe" might lead to a pragmatic "ought", one that directs behaviour. One is the effect of cognitive dissonance. If we come to believe that we ought to treat the interests of all beings impartially, we risk experiencing dissonance if we do not then act in ways which accord with this belief. Another suggestion (found in Practical Ethics and How are we to Live?) is that we may, on reflection, consider an ethical life to be more meaningful and fulfilling than the alternatives. Neither of these would compel any being to act ethically (we can shift dissonance other ways, and we may simply find fulfillment elsewhere) but they are suggestive of ways in which the "ought" of morality might be a prudential "ought" as well.

I think the Binmore/Golub objection reflects a confusion of two separate strands of Singer's thought. Strand A consists of speculative empirical considerations intended to persuade self-interested agents to act ethically e.g. the stuff in the above paragraph. Strand B consists of moral arguments rooted in utilitarianism and, ultimately, the Sidgwickian intuition. This is most clearly expressed in the first chapter of Practical Ethics. The strong "oughts" one finds throughout Singer's work (eg. "we ought to give at least ten per cent of our income to overseas aid charities, and we do wrong if we do less") all have their basis in explicitly moral arguments (let's call them B-arguments). Strand A arguments (or A-arguments) are quite different; they are pragmatic arguments, based on some quite ambitious work in the social sciences, addressed to pragmatic agents. So the "ought" of the conclusion an A-argument is a pragmatic one (e.g. you ought to act morally if you want to avoid dissonance), whereas the "ought" of the conclusion of a B-argument is a moral one (e.g. you ought not to eat meat).

Now, you suggest that Singer slips without justification from pragmatic "oughts" to moral "oughts", i.e. that Singer uses A-type arguments to justify B-type conclusions. I deny this. It is true that Singer hopes, through A-arguments, to persuade people to be more amenable to B-arguments. But this does not amount to committing the is/ought fallacy, as the prudential "ought" and the moral "ought" remain separate throught his work.

Hope this is clear and that I've understood your point correctly. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

O/T I think an additional focus of the section on Singer's metaethics should be his "tentative" argument for utilitarianism. The real tension in his work, I believe, is between the hesitant argument for utilitarianism in Chapter 1 of PE and the very strong and confident conclusions he comes to on applied ethics. As soon as I've got over the computer deleting my earlier post, I'll put some stuff into the article. --Kingbot 18:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Kingbot. You've convinced me that Singer isn't trying to justify a categorical utilitarian imperative. I've revised my addition to reflect this, and removed the counter-argument to a point that Singer wasn't really making. (Although I hope I could be forgiven for thinking that he was, since he does say "ought" at the end, but I agree that I was neglecting some context.)

I also added the summary of the other strand, as you've called it, from the last Chapter of Practical Ethics, and from How Are We to Live -- about how an ethical life might be more meaningful and satisfying. It would be great if you could expand on these with your insights.

By the way, you mentioned earlier that Binmore is an economist. That's true -- he advocates a social contract theory based on the facts of people's preferences and the attainable social equilibria. He hates categorical imperatives, since moral philosophers, on his account, have no more insight into abstract "oughts" than the boy who delivers the newspaper; or, as he puts it, "it's not enough to tell people what their moral duty is; you also have to explain why they should pay any attention when told to do their duty." While I agree that economists are often insensitive to delicate philosophical issues, I think he hits the nail on the head here without needless epicycles, so that's why I quoted him as opposed to many of the philosophers who push similar views.

Anyway, it's a real pleasure discussing this with you, and I look forward to collaborating further on the article. --Ben golub 20:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. You make my point much more clearly than I did! Unfortunately my internet access is somewhat limited but I hope to be editing once I'm back at uni. --Kingbot 21:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Singer, Tooley, and infanticide

The article, as it currently stands, implies strongly that Singer's views on utilitarian ethics justifying infanticide, at least in some cases, are original to him and generally unique. However, Michael Tooley's 1972 paper "Abortion and Infanticide" (Philosophy and Public Affairs 2, pp. 37-65) makes essentially the same argument. If Singer's arguments don't predate that paper, it should at least be noted that Singer didn't pull this out of thin air. In either case, it should be clarified that he's not alone in this viewpoint, although it is still definitely a minority one. --Delirium 02:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Indeed, Singer cites Tooley in PE, and makes it clear that his views on infanticide are shared by a substantial minority of bioethicists and members of the medical community. --Kingbot 21:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

A Darwinian Left

Why are Singer's views from A Darwinian Left not more prevalent in this article? Reform/practicalization of Marxist thought is a quite laudable goal, one quite in line with what Dawkins & lots of edge.org people feel.

Even more details...

It might be very detailed and lengthy (yet it should say so because simplifying Singer' thoughts, which are rather unpopular, would give a bad(worst) impression of him. I do wish to see another detail be put into place: examples on when infantcide is ethical according to Singer, and more detail on his thoughts about zoophilia. Personally I do agree with him, and could write examples to support his views, I believe it is best to quote him.

---

Personhood

Singer uses the term "person" to refer to "those elements of 'human being' not covered by 'Homo sapien'". Singer reject the "sanctity of all human life" and only awards the right to life to beings which he defines as "persons". Persons are, "beings that correspond to the idicators of humanhood"(fletcher). These include self-awareness, self-control, a sense of the future/past, the capacity to relate to others, concern for others as well as communication and curiosity. Singer notes that not all human beings are persons and that some animals are. These include the great apes and possibly whales, dolphins and all mammals.

• All quotes are from Practical Ethics.

Lost in space 11:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

POV

I just read his article "Heavy Petting", and I'd like to state for the record that Mr. Singer is a fool. A bloody dangerous fool, if people are actually listening to his stupidity. I will be using Singer as an example of the absurdity of Utilitarianism. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your cogent and rational critique of Peter Singer's position. The fact that you took great pains to back up your logically well-structured and excellently formulated views with hard factual evidence most impresses me. There can be no doubt that the philosopher's shrine to be built for you will be a place of pilgrimage for millenia to come. [1] Aragorn2 13:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Judeo-Christian religious tradition quote

The following statement, attributed to Peter Singer, appears more than 1,500 times on Google:

"If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian religious tradition."

The few sites I found which give any source for this say "The Deweese Report, November 1998" - but that does not lead me any further. Does anyone here know anything about this quote? Is it bogus? Or, if authentic, what is its context? - Haukur 21:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed this quote, too. I very much doubt that it is genuine. For one thing, it doesn't really sound like Singer, and I know his views intimately. For another, it doesn't really sound like any careful writer: "If animal rights is to succeed" barely scans.

I haven't found the alleged 1998 citation, but in any case, Deweese is unreliable. In this link (http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0701animalrights.htm) he wrongly states that Singer authored "A Declaration of War: Killing People To Save Animals and the Environment," an anonymous tract reputed by others to be authored by a couple of other Singers (Sidney and Tanya). Maybe Deweese has just mixed his Singers up, but anyone remotely familiar with _Peter_ Singer would not make this egregious error.

(I suspected that the quote must be from the "Declaration," but alas, the online copy I found seems not to contain it.)

Hope this helps.Richard Hanley 23:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Veganism or Vegetarianism?

At the end of the article there's a 'vegetarians' link, but not a vegan one. Is he then vegetarian? I couldn't find it in the article. though I may just not have been looking hard enough.

Singer and PETA

Does Singer have an opinion about the activism of PETA (and/or ALF)? PJ 23:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

as far as I've read he seems quite neutral to them. They printed Animal Liberation way back. But I've never read him saying anything about them beyond solid facts. He doesn't seem to either praise them or dislike them.

Sentence removed, pov

It is contextually important that Singer places considerable value on both the dog and the baby.

This is not a npov as this is heavily contested. It is my personal opinion that he places far less value on dogs, which he believes can consent to human sex, and babies, which he believes can be 'euthanised', than most thinking human beings.Killua

What makes you think that Singer does not place considerable value on animals and babies? Practical Ethics makes this pretty clear - he doesn't place the same value on them as he does on adults, and he is in favour of euthanasia, but neither of those makes the sentence you removed untrue, and it's not POV, it's an accurate statement of Singer's stance. You may not like Singer's philosophy, but the article's not about what you like or dislike. --ajn (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

For example, when people hear that Singer thinks that a dog has the same moral importance as a new born baby, they might interpret the statement as dehumanising. It is contextually important that Singer places considerable value on both the dog and the baby. The effect of this setup is as follows: 'Critics say so and so treats this and that poorly, but so and so actually does not.' Or more relevantly, "Critics see this as dehumanizing but in reality it is not." This is not a npov. What would be npov is the replacement, "Singer claims to put considerable value on the lives of babies and dogs" or "Singer does put value on both the dog and the baby." The contention here is both the word 'considerable' and the way it is setup and used. Killua

I still think you're misinterpreting Singer's position. People often object to this aspect of Singer's philosophy because traditionally we have placed a very low value on animals, and a very high one on babies (Singer talks in PE of the way that German soldiers bayonetting babies was seen as far worse than bayonetting adults). Singer says that babies have a lower value than most people think, but that animals have a higher value - he's most definitely not saying either are worthless or should be killed without a thought. "Considerable" is, I think, justifiable given the discussion of this in Practical Ethics, but I've changed the paragraph to give a more nuanced view. --ajn (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Your changes seem to be good ones, but I don't think I was misinterpreting anything. A line about Catholicism could say that it places considerable value on women's rights, but then some might disagree with that, becase it's a shady line between fact and opinion. Certainly Singer puts greater value than most on dogs, but lower than most on babies. Personally, I would say the former is considerable, the latter is not. But then, that's just my opinion, so it's better to keep it neutral. But here I am rambling, and I think your changes were pretty good and gave a clear explanation.Killua

It seems to me true that Singer places less value on the lives of human babies than most people claim to place on them. So many people claim to see human value as sacred, and even more so that of human babies; but very few actually do anything for the millions of humans, and particularly babies, who die every year because of preventable poverty. The fact that Singer is outspoken on this issue is one of the reasons people don't like him. They call him a baby killer while going around in their Chevrolet and fur coats and eat animal flesh, and don't give a damn about the real suffering and death of real humans (not to speak of non-humans). David Olivier 17:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Torture

Any source for the claim that unnamed critics of Singer have said that his form of utilitarianism can be used to justify torture? --ajn (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If you mean in an absolute sense, I think Peter Singer himself accepts that under some exceptional circumstances, such as getting a terrorist who has planted an atom bomb in New York to reveal its whereabouts, torture might be justified. He did write something like that, I think it was in Animal Liberation. If that counts as a justification of torture, to say that opponents of his views "claim that his conclusions show that utilitarianism may lead to (...) even justification of torture" is misleading, in that it suggests that it is a a conclusion that Singer does not endorse.

I think that there is an equivocation here. "Justification of torture" may mean "justification of torture in at least one case", or "a broad justification of torture generally". Deontologists do skip easily from the former to the latter. Since their ethical judgements tend to apply to kinds of acts, independently from the circumstances, they see any justification of torture even if applied to the most implausible circumstances as a justification of torture in itself, and thus a justification of torture generally. That is logical from their point of view. But to give such an interpretation to Singer's views is fallacious. Singer does accept that torture may be justified in remote circumstances, but certainly does not justify torture generally.

The sentence should thus be changed to something more NPOV.

David Olivier 11:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is this sentence: They claim that his conclusions show that utilitarianism may lead to eugenics, infanticide, or even justification of torture in certain circumstances. If "they" (proponents of deontological or virtue ethics) have claimed this, who are "they", and where have they claimed it? I accept that it's a common criticism of utilitarianism in general, and maybe Singer has attempted to deal with it, all I'm asking for is a source. --ajn (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've found the citation by Peter Singer:

We have still not answered the question of when an experiment might be justifiable. It will not do to say "Never!" Putting morality in such black-and-white terms is appealing, because it eliminates the need to think about particular cases; but in extreme circumstances, such absolutist answers always break down. Torturing a human being is almost always wrong, but it is not absolutely wrong. If torture were the only way in which we could discover the location of a nuclear bomb hidden in a New York City basement and timed to go off within the hour, then torture would be justifiable. Similarly, if a single experiment could cure a disease like leukemia, that experiment would be justifiable. But in actual life the benefits are always more remote, and more often than not they are nonexistent. So how do we decide when an experiment is justifiable?

It is from Animal Liberation, visibly from Chapter 3, on animal experimentation.

David Olivier 11:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there should be a citation about deontologists claiming that. But the sentence itself should also be modified, so as not to suggest that that is a conclusion that Singer rejects. David Olivier 11:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Category: Atheist philosophers

The latest revert removed this category. I feel that was a mistake; the category is both useful and clearly applicable. Singer is well-known for being just that, an atheist philosopher. Also, despite the wording of that rv, the category does indeed exist, so I am restoring the reference to it. Luis Dantas 11:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Humanism

• Singer has been awarded the Australian "Humanist of the year" prize [2].
• Singer describes himself as a humanist [3].
• Singer has written frequently for Free Inquiry, the journal of the Council for Secular Humanism.
• Singer is clearly a philosophical humanist in that he derives ethics from human reason rather than revelation or religious authority.

--ajn (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Singer a humanist, in the sense that "humanism" can be seen as a synonym for "speciesism". He clearly states (in Practical Ethics, in the Introduction), that his ethics is not in any way based on the fact that a being is or is not member of the human species.

But then the term "humanism" can be seen in a more loose sence as attempting to do away with unjustified discrimination, and so on. In that sense Singer may be justified in calling himself a humanist.

This doesn't settle the issue of whether Singer should or should not belong to the category of humanists...

David Olivier 12:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether you or I or anyone else editing Wikipedia thinks he's a humanist (which is, as you say, a vague term). To change the category based on the editor's personal belief would be original research. He clearly considers himself to be one, and so do plenty of other people, including humanist organisations and other philosophers. The second reference above is Singer arguing for "humanism" to be extended to include other species, but it was first published in FI, and he's definitely in the humanist camp, albeit arguing with certain aspects and interpretations. --ajn (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is something well defined that we can call "the humanist camp". So how do we decide to place Singer among the humanist philosophers? By following what he says? But then, certainly, Saddam Hussein is a humanist, if he decides to claim that he is! I don't think that there is any way to decide other than to 1) settle on one or several meanings of the term and 2) evaluating whether he qualifies to at least some of the meanings. He certainly does qualify for at least one, broad, meaning. That may justify his inclusion. But the inclusion should be qualified in some way. Perhaps by giving citations justifying that he is a humanist in some senses; but not in others (e.g. the citation from Practical Ethics). David Olivier 12:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

By following what he, and other philosophers and humanists say. And the several meanings of humanism, most of which Singer fits into: valuing humans per se rather than their deriving value from something external, ethics derived from human reason, "placing the end of moral action in the welfare of humanity" (Oxford Companion to Philosophy), and so on. So far, I've seen no argument that he isn't a humanist, beyond people saying they think his conclusions are inhumane, which presumably means they have a differing ethical system to Singer's and are confusing humanism and being "humane" (which essentially boils down to "doing things I think are good"). He's produced arguments for infanticide, sure, but only in the context of improving the overall welfare of humanity - all his ethical writings are based on the assumption that human life is valuable in itself (and that animal life is also valuable). Can anyone produce a reputable source for the claim that he isn't a humanist? --ajn (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit circular to decide who is a humanist based on the way other humanists define humanism.

As for the several meanings of "humanism" that you mention:

Valuing humans per se rather than their deriving value from something external. I agree that Singer does that (he values sentient beings, or perhaps only persons, for themselves), but I don't think that that is what humanism does generally. Very often humanism seems to give very little value to individuals, valuing instead "humanity", seen as a separate entity. For instance, the Holocaust was a crime against six million sentient beings. Instead, humanism tends to call it a "crime against humanity", whatever that may mean.

Ethics derived from human reason. OK.

Placing the end of moral action in the welfare of humanity. Well, Singer does not do that. He places the end of moral action in the satisfaction of the preferences of all sentient beings. Not only of human beings. Less still in the welfare of that abstract object called "humanity".

I don't think that the arguments against calling Singer a humanist are only about his (allegedly) being inhumane. They often center around the fact he gives the same attention to the interests of a non-human animal as to those of humans. That is why they say he is not a humanist. They do have a point there.

David Olivier 15:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Again: who are the "they" who allegedly say this? I've provided evidence that Singer identifies himself as a humanist, and that other reputable sources consider him to be one. It's not circular at all to say that if people who know about these things (including Singer himself) say he's a humanist, he is one. --ajn (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, MSTCrow, for one, says that Singer is not a humanist. Presumably he or she sees claims to be a humanist. Nor is MSTCrow alone in saying this. The Web is full of pages against Peter Singer, repeatedly claiming that he is the contrary of what they regard as humanism. More specifically, the Catholic church claims to be humanist, and is almost invariably hostile to Singer. Catholics do fit into most criteria for calling themselves humanists. Certainly their creed is that the most important thing in creation (actually: the only important thing) is humanity. One aspect of humanism that they don't adhere to is the idea that ethics should be derived from human reason alone (they believe it is also necessary to accept the authority of relevation). But by and large, they certainly have as good a claim as Singer to call themselves humanists, and they almost invariably deny that Singer is a humanist.

There is also the distinction, perhaps first used by Paola Cavalieri (initiator of the Great Ape Project), between inclusive and exclusive humanism. Singer might be seen as an inclusive humanist (favoring equal consideration of the interests of all humans), while not being an exclusive humanist (one who excludes the interests of non-humans). There is a reference to the distinction in this article by Paul Waldo (pdf).

Anyway, it is clear that the debate about whether or not Peter Singer is a humanist isn't the same as debating whether he is a nice guy or a bad guy. I think he is a nice guy, but that he isn't a humanist in certain core senses of the word. Many others, such as MSTCrow, think he is a bad guy but agree with me about his not being a humanist in those core senses. He certainly is a humanist in other senses; at least, I believe so, and many others do too. So I don't think it is correct to call him a humanist without any qualification.

David Olivier 17:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

One example of Catholics claiming to be humanists:

This encyclical is the capstone of Pope John Paul II's distinctive thought ---"prophetic humanism."

That is on this page on the website of the Catholic Conference of Kentucky. The same page speaks of another philosopher constructing a "cogent humanistic argument" against euthanasia, in contrast with Peter Singer's attitude, which it vilifies.

And that's just one example.

David Olivier 17:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the passage I mentioned by Peter Singer in Practical Ethics (Preface, page ix in the 1993 edition):

(...)it could be said that if there is any single aspect of this book that distinguishes it from other approaches to such issues as human equality, abortion, euthanasia, and the environment, it is the fact that these topics are approached with a consious disavouwal of any assumption that all members of our species have, merely because they are members of our species, any distinctive worth or inherent value that puts them above members of other species.

David Olivier 17:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians are not sources. You haven't provided any sources saying that he isn't a humanist. Henry^Flower 18:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I have. Just read. David Olivier 18:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read, and you haven't. Henry^Flower 18:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, do I really have to point it out to you, make it flash green and red?

I've spent quite some time searching the Web for those citations and it would be nice for you not to just come and say "you have given no evidence".

The Catholic page specifically claims that Catholicism is humanistic and contrasts what it calls a humanistic attitude with that of Peter Singer. I am not giving my opinion here, just stating the obvious (take five minutes to seach the Web if that is not too much to demand of you), that is that Catholics generally claim to be humanists and that they claim that P.S. is not. Now true, I don't have a passage that says verbatim "Peter Singer is not a humanist". I don't think you can find that for Saddam Hussein either. To ask for such a thing is absurd. I think we can accept as noncontroversial the fact that calling Peter Singer a humanist is controversial. That doesn't mean being for or against P.S., nor for or against humanism. It is just plain obvious fact.

David Olivier 18:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I take it you're joking. There's a rather substantial difference between saying you're a humanist who disagrees with Singer, and saying that Singer is not a humanist. Henry^Flower 18:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue which started this thread is whether or not to include Singer in Category:Humanists. There's a pretty mixed bunch in there, but since it includes a lot of atheists and humanists such as Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, Voltaire, and Gene Roddenberry, (as well as a Dalai Lama) it seems to me Singer wouldn't be out of place and should be included too. (It's not as if only 'humanists' by some strict Catholic definition are included.)

The argument above, along the lines of 'X is a humanist, X holds contrary positions to Singer' does not lead to the conclusion 'therefore Singer is not a humanist.' Humanism is a very broad category.

The only argument for keeping Singer out of it seems to be based on a (mis)interpretation that humanism can be taken to mean speciesism, and that privileging humans over non-human animals is a requirement for being a humanist. I don't know of anyone who holds this view, if it can be found in some reputable source, add it to the criticism, perhaps, but it isn't strong enough grounds to ignore the fact that Singer describes himself as a humanist, and has been awarded 'best humanist' by the Australian humanists organisation. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Those Catholics are not just saying "we are humanists; and, independently from that, we don't like Peter Singer". If you read what they say, it is obvious that they are contrasting their humanism with P.S.'s ideas.

Now I am not against including P.S. in the category "humanists". I don't care that much about it. It's just that MSTCrow does have a point. There are people who believe that calling Peter Singer a humanist is contrary to what they think humanism stands for. There are many of them.

You believe that it is a misinterpretation of humanism to take it to mean speciesism. I think that that is a very common interpretation of the word, one that has much support among humanists themselves, and that is strongly supported by the history of humanism. See Pico della Mirandola, for instance, who is seen as a founder of humanism, and who invariably contrasted human dignity with the undignity of lower animals. It may be justified to include Peter Singer among humanists, but there is a tension between what he says and much of what many people see as the core of humanism, i.e. human supremacy. To deny that is to deny the obvious.

Here in France, we have numerous people who insist that we antispeciesists are "saboteurs of humanism" - there is even a book with that subtitle, see the article I wrote on that book. It is a recurrent theme that humanism does imply human supremacy. I don't deny there can be other interpretations of the word, but please don't deny that there is that one.

David Olivier 19:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Another example, on this page:

On voit bien par là que deux types de rapports humanistes aux animaux sont possibles : 1) l'indifférence; 2) le dégoût.

Which in English means:

Thus we see well that there the humanist attitude towards animals is either: 1) indifference 2) disgust

That text explicitly contrasts human dignity with animal indignity, in the name of humanism. That is but one example.

David Olivier 19:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're not disputing including him in the humanist category, then what are you here for? This page is not for general discussions about Singer, it's for discussing possible changes to the article. Henry^Flower 20:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Putting a qualifying sentence about whether or not Singer is a humanist would be a good change to the article.

Now if that is all that this discussion page is about, I don't know why you and a few others thought it necessary to deny the facts that I stated in support for what I said. If you don't want the discussion to go astray, don't make it go astray.

David Olivier 20:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Then what's so hard about finding any source saying that he isn't a humanist? Pointing out that there are disagreements between secular humanists and religious humanists won't do. Henry^Flower 20:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I get the feeling we are speaking in different languages or something. David Olivier 20:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

(Reply to David Olivier's longer para above.) Interesting, I wasn't aware that that view was widespread in France. I'm based in Britain, where there is (perhaps) less opposition to animal rights, and (certainly) less interest in anything that smacks of philosophy. (And thanks for your article - I tried to read it, but my French is pretty wobbly.)

The problem here is that the word 'humanist' can be used to describe Singer, Voltaire, Pico della Mirandola, Erasmus, Russell, and Richard Dawkins. These are very different thinkers, and you need some context to decide whether they are Catholic/renaissance/secular or whatnot. Judging Singer's humanism by Catholic humanist standards is comparing apples with oranges.

The question is, if someone goes to the Category:Humanists page, never having heard of Singer, might they be interested in him? (I think yes). Would they, coming to the Singer article, find it bizarre that he was listed? (I think probably not).

Finally, the self-description, the writing for FI, and the 'best humanist' award seem conclusive. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not for deleting that inclusion; because it can be argued for, and also for opportunistic reasons like those you mention :-D

Actually, I'm a bit surprised by the very existence of that category, which as you say includes that many different philosophers. If it includes almost anyone, what use is it? However, this is not the place to discuss that. (That page does seem to have other disputed entries, such as E.O. Wilson.)

If I get around to it, I will try to write something in the article about the issue of Singer being / not being a humanist.

True, the situation in France (and "continental Europe" generally) is somewhat different from that in the English-speaking world. I find it difficult to pinpoint the difference, but it exists and does lead to misunderstandings.

David Olivier 20:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a new category is required, such as "debatable humanists." Oh, and I don't know if he's personally a nice guy or not, although I probably could at least bump into him if I wanted to, but I find him professionally, philosophically and ethically to be repugnant.

MSTCrow 12:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's because you're a human supremacist. You're a humanist in that sense. I'm happy there are philosophers like Peter Singer who are not. David Olivier 12:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that type of response is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I'm sure you can rephrase that.

MSTCrow 17:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you object to being termed a human supremacist. You are a self-proclaimed "omnivore" (on your user page). When you objected to Peter Singer's inclusion among humanists, it was (following the comment you put on your edit of the article page, 9 May 2006) because he advocates infanticide. Since he does so in cases in which the human babies have mental capacities lower, sometimes much lower, than those of many of the animals that people (and presumably you among them) routinely eat (and hence order killed), the only thing I can see that irks you is that in one case the beings who are killed are humans, while in the other case they are not. Whether a being is human or not makes all the difference, in your eyes. Does that not mean you are a human supremacist? If you are proud to be an omnivore - you go to the trouble of proclaiming it - why are you not proud to say you are a human supremacist? Most people are human supremacists, you are not alone in that!

Also, I don't see why it should be fair sport (on Wikipedia or elsewhere) to engage in unrestrained Singer-bashing, while not accepting to have one's feelings hurt in the slightest measure. I jocularly described your views by saying you feel he is a bad guy, while I feel the reverse. You could have let it at that. Instead, you state (above) that you "find him professionally, philosophically and ethically to be repugnant". Now that is strong language against Peter Singer. Perhaps that doesn't count, if Peter Singer is not a Wikipedian. But others - at least myself - who share much of Peter Singer's views are Wikipedians, and you know it, and you don't hesitate to call us by implication philosophically and ethically repugnant. Thank you for that!

The Web is full of pages spewing over Peter Singer, and by implication over anyone who dares agree with his horrible ideas. OK, that's free speech. But for you to think you can come to Wikipedia and do the same, and not even accept for someone just to describe your ideas with a term that you may find slightly irritating, is not reasonable.

David Olivier 23:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Animal Liberation Front references

I took the liberty of removing the Animal Liberation Front link from the "See Also" heading. Since Peter Singer neither supports nor condones the actions of organizations that break the law, I felt that the presence of the link could be misleading. (BTW, this is my first major edit on Wikipedia...)

Armybandgeek 02:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. And welcome! :) Haukur 03:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your wrong on that one. He does support some law-breaking. See the second-to-last chapter in "Practical Ethics" or see his history of the movement, entitled "The Animal Liberation Movement". What Singer does reject is violence in the cause. The A.L.F. also rejects violence. Whether the two are defining the word "violence" in the same way is another issue. Epa101 09:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)