Singer’s original EA argument, concerning the Bengal famine, has two massive holes in the argument, one of which survives to his simplified setup. I’m going to explain because it’s funny; I’m not sure if you’ve been banned yet.
First, in the simplified setup, Singer says: there is a child drowning in the river! You must jump into the river, ruining your clothes, or else the child will drown. Further, there’s no time for debate; if you waste time talking, then you forfeit the child. My response is to grab Singer by the belt buckle and collar and throw him into the river, and then strip down and save the child, ignoring whatever happens to Singer. My reasoning is that I don’t like epistemic muggers and I will make choices that punish them in order to dissuade them from approaching me, but I’ll still save the child afterwards. In terms of real life, it was a good call to prosecute SBF regardless of any good he may have done.
Second, in the Bangladesh setup, Singer says: everybody must donate to one specific charity because the charity can always turn more donations into more delivered food. Accepting the second part, there’s a self-reference issue in the second part: if one is an employee of the charity, do they also have to donate? If we do the case analysis and discard the paradoxical cases, we are left with the repugnant conclusion: everybody ought to not just donate their money to the charity, but also all of their labor, at the cheapest prices possible while not starving themselves. Maybe I’m too much of a communist, but I’d rather just put rich peoples’ heads on pikes instead and issue a food guarantee.
It’s worth remembering that the actual famine was mostly a combination of failures of local government and also the USA withholding food due to Bangladesh trading with Cuba; maybe Singer’s hand-wringing over the donation strategies of wealthy white moderates is misplaced.
There is a genocide going on right now in Gaza. Has Singer, the great utilitarian, said anything about how the common man should act to stop it?
Is it more effective to protest or block ports or destroy weaponry? Do we have a moral obligation to overthrow governments supporting genocide, in particular if that government is in our country? If we come across one of the perpetrators of the genocide do we have a moral obligation to do something?
Or are these all to uncomfortable questions, while the donation habits of the middle class is comfortable questions?
I have no idea what Peter Singer has to say about Gaza. I haven’t heard anything decisive about what the most effective way to help stop the genocide is, I don’t think there is much evidence on the matter right now. Based on EA I’d say do as much as you can, but don’t neglect the possibly more effective causes like malaria nets and direct giving in the meantime.
Is your argument that Singer’s philosophical arguments are fallacious because he hasn’t delivered a guide to how to help the Palestinians? Because I don’t think that works out.
If your argument is that he himself is a poor philosopher or activist for that reason, then sure, I have nothing against that.
My argument is that if he hasn’t spoken out on Gaza, if he hasn’t urged people to do what he thinks would be the best way to stop the genocide, then he is either a fool who can’t see what is in front of him or a moral coward who can’t act on his convictions.
Either way it makes him a poor ethics philosopher. We can be pretty sure that unless he himself is an experienced life guard, he would in fact not dive in to the river to save the child.
Nah dawg it’s the fact that his “incredible solid and well argued” moral framework finds it impossible to unequivocally denounce a fucking genocide that means that maybe it’s not nearly as solid as you say.
He’s not the owner of the framework, the framework pretty obviously denounces a fucking genocide on the grounds of basic universalism and utilitarianism.
Nothing to do with what he does or doesn’t do or say. We’re allowed to think for ourselves, that’s what philosophy is for.
Does moral cowardice matter in someone teaching about ethics? Yes, just as much as physical cowardice matters for a life guard. (The other way is fine.)
Does he express his ideas and teachings as something that it would be good if people did, but he totally wouldn’t if it causes himself a smidgen of inconvenience? If he didn’t, we now know that he was lying. Which matters if your moral framework cares about truth.
If you have to read his works for some reason, do it with open eyes and try to figure out who and what he is lying in service of.
Nothing about a philosopher’s person matters as long as they’re able to put forward coherent philosophical arguments. If a conclusion follows from a set of assumptions and an argument, what does it matter if a five year old or a tree presented that argument?
Sure, if you distrust the source, that invites deeper scrutiny, but it cannot in itself invalidate an argument.
Don’t know anything about him as a person, but his writing on veganism and EA is some of the most concise and convincing modern moral philosophy I’ve read.
Clearly formulated, with clear assumptions and solid arguments and conclusions built on them, making it easy to critique without having studied moral philosophy.
I’d be genuinely interested in an elaboration. Reading the article, the fundamental issue seems to be that he’s an idealist utilitarian who opposes racism and animal suffering in the wrong way?
The article concludes that
Of course, there are plenty of good reasons to become a vegetarian, to advocate for better treatment for animals, or to oppose factory farming.
But I genuinely haven’t seen such reasons which do not ultimately end up in some form of Singer’s argument that suffering implies moral value. Do you have a link exploring it further?
Let’s do veganism now. I’m allowed to do this because I still remember what lentil burgers taste like from when I dated a vegan at university. So, as with most vegans, Singer is blocked by the classical counting paradoxes from declaring that a certain number of eukaryotic cells makes something morally inedible, and the standard list of counterexamples works just fine for him. Also, I hear he eats shellfish, and geoducks are bigger than e.g. chicks or kittens (or whatever else we might not want to eat.) I don’t know how he’d convince me that a SCOBY is fundamentally not deserving of the same moral insight either; I think we just do it by convention to avoid the cosmic horror of thinking how many yeast cells must die to make a loaf of bread, and most practicing vegans aren’t even willing to pray for all the bugs that they accidentally squish.
I agree with everything else he puts forward, but it boils down to buying organic-farmed food and discouraging factory farming. Singer is heavy on sentiment but painfully light on biology.
We have an obligation to not cause suffering to beings with moral value
Some animals can suffer, therefore they have moral value, and we have an obligation to not cause suffering to them
You can then of course ask whether yeast can suffer, which we don’t have any evidence of, but you’re welcome to stop eating yeast if you feel morally obliged to anyway. Lack of evidence doesn’t mean we know they don’t suffer. But for the animals where we have convincing evidence that they experience suffering, such as most intelligent mammals, we all have a clear moral obligation to stop causing them harm.
Counting cells doesn’t really enter the argument. Evidence of suffering does, which is not just about sentiment.
The inability to draw a perfect distinction between beings that can suffer and those who cannot doesn’t stop us from identifying cases clearly on either side of that line.
What Singer eats doesn’t really matter for the argument.
You now have to argue that oxidative stress isn’t suffering. Biology does not allow for humans to divide the world into the regions where suffering can be experienced and regions where it is absent. (The other branch contradicts the lived experience of anybody who has actually raised a sourdough starter; it is a living thing which requires food, water, and other care to remain homeostatic, and which changes in flavor due to environmental stress.)
Worse, your framing fails to meet one of the oldest objections to Singer’s position, one which I still consider a knockout: you aren’t going to convince the cats to stop eating intelligent mammals, and evidence suggests that cats suffer when force-fed a vegan diet.
When you come to Debate Club, make sure that your arguments are actually well-lubed and won’t squeak when you swing them. You’ve tried to clumsily replay Singer’s arguments without understanding their issues and how rhetoric has evolved since then. I would suggest watching some old George Carlin reruns; the man was a powerhouse of rhetoric.
The Peter Singer EA concept is incredible solid and well argued, such a shame it’s been stolen by grifters
Singer’s original EA argument, concerning the Bengal famine, has two massive holes in the argument, one of which survives to his simplified setup. I’m going to explain because it’s funny; I’m not sure if you’ve been banned yet.
First, in the simplified setup, Singer says: there is a child drowning in the river! You must jump into the river, ruining your clothes, or else the child will drown. Further, there’s no time for debate; if you waste time talking, then you forfeit the child. My response is to grab Singer by the belt buckle and collar and throw him into the river, and then strip down and save the child, ignoring whatever happens to Singer. My reasoning is that I don’t like epistemic muggers and I will make choices that punish them in order to dissuade them from approaching me, but I’ll still save the child afterwards. In terms of real life, it was a good call to prosecute SBF regardless of any good he may have done.
Second, in the Bangladesh setup, Singer says: everybody must donate to one specific charity because the charity can always turn more donations into more delivered food. Accepting the second part, there’s a self-reference issue in the second part: if one is an employee of the charity, do they also have to donate? If we do the case analysis and discard the paradoxical cases, we are left with the repugnant conclusion: everybody ought to not just donate their money to the charity, but also all of their labor, at the cheapest prices possible while not starving themselves. Maybe I’m too much of a communist, but I’d rather just put rich peoples’ heads on pikes instead and issue a food guarantee.
It’s worth remembering that the actual famine was mostly a combination of failures of local government and also the USA withholding food due to Bangladesh trading with Cuba; maybe Singer’s hand-wringing over the donation strategies of wealthy white moderates is misplaced.
Removed by mod
There is a genocide going on right now in Gaza. Has Singer, the great utilitarian, said anything about how the common man should act to stop it?
Is it more effective to protest or block ports or destroy weaponry? Do we have a moral obligation to overthrow governments supporting genocide, in particular if that government is in our country? If we come across one of the perpetrators of the genocide do we have a moral obligation to do something?
Or are these all to uncomfortable questions, while the donation habits of the middle class is comfortable questions?
I have no idea what Peter Singer has to say about Gaza. I haven’t heard anything decisive about what the most effective way to help stop the genocide is, I don’t think there is much evidence on the matter right now. Based on EA I’d say do as much as you can, but don’t neglect the possibly more effective causes like malaria nets and direct giving in the meantime.
Is your argument that Singer’s philosophical arguments are fallacious because he hasn’t delivered a guide to how to help the Palestinians? Because I don’t think that works out.
If your argument is that he himself is a poor philosopher or activist for that reason, then sure, I have nothing against that.
My argument is that if he hasn’t spoken out on Gaza, if he hasn’t urged people to do what he thinks would be the best way to stop the genocide, then he is either a fool who can’t see what is in front of him or a moral coward who can’t act on his convictions.
Either way it makes him a poor ethics philosopher. We can be pretty sure that unless he himself is an experienced life guard, he would in fact not dive in to the river to save the child.
If he wouldn’t save the drowning child, does that mean I shouldn’t? Does his potential personal failings really invalidate his ideas and arguments?
No. That’s exactly the ad hominem fallacy.
Nah dawg it’s the fact that his “incredible solid and well argued” moral framework finds it impossible to unequivocally denounce a fucking genocide that means that maybe it’s not nearly as solid as you say.
He’s not the owner of the framework, the framework pretty obviously denounces a fucking genocide on the grounds of basic universalism and utilitarianism.
Nothing to do with what he does or doesn’t do or say. We’re allowed to think for ourselves, that’s what philosophy is for.
Edit: If you need Peter to do it for you, here: If Biari was central to [October 7th], he was capable of extraordinary evil and ought to be brought to justice. But that does not justify killing 126 civilians.
Does moral cowardice matter in someone teaching about ethics? Yes, just as much as physical cowardice matters for a life guard. (The other way is fine.)
Does he express his ideas and teachings as something that it would be good if people did, but he totally wouldn’t if it causes himself a smidgen of inconvenience? If he didn’t, we now know that he was lying. Which matters if your moral framework cares about truth.
If you have to read his works for some reason, do it with open eyes and try to figure out who and what he is lying in service of.
Nothing about a philosopher’s person matters as long as they’re able to put forward coherent philosophical arguments. If a conclusion follows from a set of assumptions and an argument, what does it matter if a five year old or a tree presented that argument?
Sure, if you distrust the source, that invites deeper scrutiny, but it cannot in itself invalidate an argument.
who is this peter singer fellow? Sounds like a great and unproblematic man. Please tell us more of his teachings.
@swlabr @SmoothOperator
Didn’t he sing Little Boxes?
Not sure on that but I think he’s related to Sabrina Carpenter. Source, this line from Espresso:
Don’t know anything about him as a person, but his writing on veganism and EA is some of the most concise and convincing modern moral philosophy I’ve read.
Clearly formulated, with clear assumptions and solid arguments and conclusions built on them, making it easy to critique without having studied moral philosophy.
oh wow, convincing moral philosophy you say? brb adjusting my priors
(e: the rationalwiki links are probably an even better overview)
I’d be genuinely interested in an elaboration. Reading the article, the fundamental issue seems to be that he’s an idealist utilitarian who opposes racism and animal suffering in the wrong way?
The article concludes that
But I genuinely haven’t seen such reasons which do not ultimately end up in some form of Singer’s argument that suffering implies moral value. Do you have a link exploring it further?
don’t worry, he’s just a misunderstood good guy
Let’s do veganism now. I’m allowed to do this because I still remember what lentil burgers taste like from when I dated a vegan at university. So, as with most vegans, Singer is blocked by the classical counting paradoxes from declaring that a certain number of eukaryotic cells makes something morally inedible, and the standard list of counterexamples works just fine for him. Also, I hear he eats shellfish, and geoducks are bigger than e.g. chicks or kittens (or whatever else we might not want to eat.) I don’t know how he’d convince me that a SCOBY is fundamentally not deserving of the same moral insight either; I think we just do it by convention to avoid the cosmic horror of thinking how many yeast cells must die to make a loaf of bread, and most practicing vegans aren’t even willing to pray for all the bugs that they accidentally squish.
I agree with everything else he puts forward, but it boils down to buying organic-farmed food and discouraging factory farming. Singer is heavy on sentiment but painfully light on biology.
As I understand his argument, it goes
You can then of course ask whether yeast can suffer, which we don’t have any evidence of, but you’re welcome to stop eating yeast if you feel morally obliged to anyway. Lack of evidence doesn’t mean we know they don’t suffer. But for the animals where we have convincing evidence that they experience suffering, such as most intelligent mammals, we all have a clear moral obligation to stop causing them harm.
Counting cells doesn’t really enter the argument. Evidence of suffering does, which is not just about sentiment.
The inability to draw a perfect distinction between beings that can suffer and those who cannot doesn’t stop us from identifying cases clearly on either side of that line.
What Singer eats doesn’t really matter for the argument.
You now have to argue that oxidative stress isn’t suffering. Biology does not allow for humans to divide the world into the regions where suffering can be experienced and regions where it is absent. (The other branch contradicts the lived experience of anybody who has actually raised a sourdough starter; it is a living thing which requires food, water, and other care to remain homeostatic, and which changes in flavor due to environmental stress.)
Worse, your framing fails to meet one of the oldest objections to Singer’s position, one which I still consider a knockout: you aren’t going to convince the cats to stop eating intelligent mammals, and evidence suggests that cats suffer when force-fed a vegan diet.
When you come to Debate Club, make sure that your arguments are actually well-lubed and won’t squeak when you swing them. You’ve tried to clumsily replay Singer’s arguments without understanding their issues and how rhetoric has evolved since then. I would suggest watching some old George Carlin reruns; the man was a powerhouse of rhetoric.
this is not debate club