Sunday, March 13, 2005
Volokhian Barnett seems to misunderstand Peter Singer, but is aware he may be misunderstanding.
General idea - Singer reinvented ethics during the 70s.
It was dead, he bought it back to life.
His approach is to apply the tools of philosophy to the question, what do we do next?
Other people apply tools of economics, or sociology, etc. Such efforts are useful - any kind of insight into the "what do we do next" question is helpful. Before Singer,
philosophy had stopped bothering with the "what do we do next" problem, and was hung up on the meaning of meaning and other head of the pin topics.
People think of him as someone who has a position about "how should we act about animals" or "how should we act about babies", when instead what he's doing is asking,
does philosophy have anything useful to say about how we treat animals and babies?
Custom and habit and superstition have their uses, but his approach was, let's think about these things logically and rationally and see what results.
I've met Singer and Barnett, and respect them for the same sorts of reasons.
Both are people who work on issues of liberty, and get taken seriously in the academic world. As someone committed to working for liberty, I saw academia as a possible path. It hasn't worked out that way, because of my personal failings and limitations, but there have been others who've been able to move into that space.
I only know Tom Smith thru a few visits to his blog, and find him somewhat offensive, and often wrong, sometimes funny.
Would Singer make a good babysitter? I don't know. I would suspect yes; I've seen him handle a class of undergraduates. Professor Lawrence Becker once told me that when Singer stayed at his house for a conference, he had a profound aversion to cats.
Being a babysitter and being a professor of babysitting involve different skill sets and preferences.
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/interviews-debates/20041004.htm
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer has a lot more.
General idea - Singer reinvented ethics during the 70s.
It was dead, he bought it back to life.
His approach is to apply the tools of philosophy to the question, what do we do next?
Other people apply tools of economics, or sociology, etc. Such efforts are useful - any kind of insight into the "what do we do next" question is helpful. Before Singer,
philosophy had stopped bothering with the "what do we do next" problem, and was hung up on the meaning of meaning and other head of the pin topics.
People think of him as someone who has a position about "how should we act about animals" or "how should we act about babies", when instead what he's doing is asking,
does philosophy have anything useful to say about how we treat animals and babies?
Custom and habit and superstition have their uses, but his approach was, let's think about these things logically and rationally and see what results.
I've met Singer and Barnett, and respect them for the same sorts of reasons.
Both are people who work on issues of liberty, and get taken seriously in the academic world. As someone committed to working for liberty, I saw academia as a possible path. It hasn't worked out that way, because of my personal failings and limitations, but there have been others who've been able to move into that space.
I only know Tom Smith thru a few visits to his blog, and find him somewhat offensive, and often wrong, sometimes funny.
Would Singer make a good babysitter? I don't know. I would suspect yes; I've seen him handle a class of undergraduates. Professor Lawrence Becker once told me that when Singer stayed at his house for a conference, he had a profound aversion to cats.
Being a babysitter and being a professor of babysitting involve different skill sets and preferences.
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/interviews-debates/20041004.htm
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer has a lot more.
Comments:
Post a Comment
