Not necessarily. We need something that can motivate atheists into helping the less fortunate. Peter Singer applies utilitarian ethics personal, and he gives 20% of his salary to Oxfam and Unicef. Singer did not do this because God told him to; he did it because of utilitarian concern for the welfare of humanity.In other words, atheists fear eachother.
Could we not focus on his views on infanticide and abortion. Those are unpleasant topics, but regarding those topics, Peter Singer does value human life, but it depends on how “human” is defined as Singer has his own definition for this word. I might disagree with him on this topic though. But it seems Singer believes he is advocating the utilitarian thing to do.I would argue that Peter Singer is a poor role model because he does not follow the utilitarian ethic. As a public figure who makes his views well known on abortion and infanticide, he causes great pain to groups like Not Dead Yet who care very deeply about the worth of human life. His donations to various charitable causes do not outweigh the pain he causes to these groups. He is not a good role model even by utilitarian standards. Your thoughts on this analysis?
Wikipedia also calls him a “moral atheist”.Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being’s ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in, among other things, the ability to plan and anticipate one’s future. Since the unborn, infants and severely disabled people lack the latter (but not the former) ability, he states that abortion, painless infanticide and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.
I am not sparring with you on the “when human life begins” issue, I’m just saying that many people believe that it occurs at conception. And these folks who we would all say are “human persons” are deeply pained by Singer’s public remarks to the contrary. He knows that he his causing this pain to these people. He doesn’t seem to care.Could we not focus on his views on infanticide and abortion. Those are unpleasant topics, but regarding those topics, Peter Singer does value human life, but it depends on how “human” is defined as Singer has his own definition for this word. I might disagree with him on this topic though. But it seems Singer believes he is advocating the utilitarian thing to do.
We both know this doesn’t mean anything. What if Wiki said he wasn’t a moral atheist?Wikipedia also calls him a “moral atheist”.
I know you wanted to focus on that, but the problem is that your OP inquired if he could be considered to be a role model or not. He cannot. He does not follow the utilitarian principle of reducing the pain of others. And I never said he was an ogre. He just isn’t a role model.I wanted people to focus on the fact that utilitarian ethics gave Peter Singer a reason to donate 20% of his salary to Oxfam and Unicef to allievate human suffering. I do not want people to see Peter Singer as an ogre, but as a compassionate humanitarian because of this. If he is wrong regarding life issues, it does not detract from the benevolence of his charity.
I thought some more about this this morning, and I don’t think I completely answered your question. I agree that assuming Mr. Singer had a proper state of mind when making the donations, it is a moral act on his part. It could even be that in this one respect he is a good role model if we can somehow ignore other less than charitable actions. But I grant this from the point of a theistic worldview, not a utilitarian worldview.I wanted people to focus on the fact that utilitarian ethics gave Peter Singer a reason to donate 20% of his salary to Oxfam and Unicef to allievate human suffering. I do not want people to see Peter Singer as an ogre, but as a compassionate humanitarian because of this. If he is wrong regarding life issues, it does not detract from the benevolence of his charity.