Today's 'most influential philosopher'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sebastian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lisa N:
I read your essay. While I don’t disagree with Singer in that many of us are not giving everything away and taking up our cross, again I don’t see his argument developed. Singer should explain why SHOULD we sacrifice. He doesn’t. So far I’ve asked three times if anyone understands the BASIS for Singer’s philosophy. You cliam it is “truth” but IMO it seems like total relativism. It’s true if it’s true for ME. So what is it?

Catholics can develop an argument and provide substantiation within sacred texts, tradition, and natural law. Singer has his opinion. On balance, I think the scales are tipped toward the Catholic position.

Any thoughts?
Lisa N
Click to expand...
Part of the reason you don’t see his argument developed is that I only included a small excerpt.

The basis for his philosophy is that he has rejected a notion of a static moral standard. He is an atheist, through and through. For him, if there is no God, no entity which can determine the moral standard, then our idea of “morals” is simply a social construct. Why are they constructed so? Because the people who adopted them felt that they were somehow good for their way of life, their society.

Singer is a utilitarian. He believes that the moral nature of an act should be determined solely by its consequences. Whether a consequence is good or bad is in part determined by the society in which such an act occurs.

In his essay, he was not so much arguing that we should sacrifice, but arguing that *if *we think that human life is something which ought to be preserved, and that it is somehow wrong for someone like Bob to sacrifice a child for the sake of his Bugatti, then we should be willing to apply the same principles to ourselves. He is calling for us to live lives that are consistent with our beliefs, whatever they may be.

Many of Singers conclusions are false. I never claimed that his arguments are true. I am trying to make a distinction between validity and truth, as there is a significant difference between the two in the field of formal logic. Singer’s problem is not so much the way in which he reasons but in the basic assumptions he begins his reasoning with, chief of which is the statement of the man of Psalm 14:1

“There is no God. . .”

While the description the Psalmist gives to such a man is fittingly applied to Singer, that does not mean that we can simply dismiss everything he has to say. If he truly is so influential – and I believe he is, or at least he is expressing ideas that are very influential in this culture – we need to engage those ideas and show them for what they are, whether good, bad, or ugly.
 
Nihil novus sub sole – There is nothing new under the sun. – Ecclesiastes 1: 9.
40.png
Prometheum_x:
The basis for his philosophy is that he has rejected a notion of a static moral standard. He is an atheist, through and through. For him, if there is no God, no entity which can determine the moral standard, then our idea of “morals” is simply a social construct. Why are they constructed so? Because the people who adopted them felt that they were somehow good for their way of life, their society.
Click to expand...
If there is no God, everything is permitted. – Dostoyevski
40.png
Prometheum_x:
Singer is a utilitarian. He believes that the moral nature of an act should be determined solely by its consequences. Whether a consequence is good or bad is in part determined by the society in which such an act occurs.
Click to expand...
Lisa N’s point is well taken. How does a society determine good/bad consequences? It is at least question begging to say that the good is what society approves. But more importantly, society does not dictate that life, health and logical consistency are goods – we, individually and collectively, discover that they are, at least in our own cases. I think it is a fair criticism to point out that there must have been some static (moral) standard for his rejecting a static moral standards. Sure, Singer is consistent in arguing that if abortion is permitted,** then** so should infanticide. But on what basis should we grant the antecedent? Since the antecedent is false, nothing logically follows. The fact that he is a utilitarian does not absolve him of his conclusions, it is something of which he needs absolution.
40.png
Prometheum_x:
If he truly is so influential – and I believe he is, or at least he is expressing ideas that are very influential in this culture – we need to engage those ideas and show them for what they are, whether good, bad, or ugly.
Click to expand...
I agree that he is probably is not driving anyone to accept infanticide, but showing where the ill-chosen presuppositions are leading us. We engage the ideas at the basis of Singer’s arguments by calling them false, bad, ugly and unfounded. I agree, too, with Minerva that he is not really influencing academics. His greatest influence probably has been to make people horrified at the (perceived) state of academia.
 
I just read some of his ideas about animals, pretty ridiculous. What’s next? The liberation of insects? Equal rights for plants? “Whoa, don’t walk on the grass!. You’re murdering it!”

Man - God = insanity

About the baby vs. the car trainwreck analogy, it’s very dramatic and profound, especially given all those “$1 a day and you can save this child” tv promotions. I would agree that we should give whatever God asks of us to help those in need. This is 10% of our income last time I checked. Or is that only for the Church? I suppose you can take this to the extreme, and truly “sacrifice” yourself to help others in need. I don’t think it is a sin NOT to, but it certainly would be a heroic act to do so.

If you’re living a modest middle-class life, you shouldn’t feel bad (I bet Singer himself is living pretty bourgeois too, that silly ***). The true end to world poverty has to happen on a massive global scale, with upheavels in the way world trade and commerce works. We can certainly do our small part through charity organizations, though. Even one man can make a huge difference. John D. Rockefeller Jr. funded massive philanthropic projects all over the world.
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
The basis for his philosophy is that he has rejected a notion of a static moral standard. He is an atheist, through and through. For him, if there is no God, no entity which can determine the moral standard, then our idea of “morals” is simply a social construct. Why are they constructed so? Because the people who adopted them felt that they were somehow good for their way of life, their society.

Singer is a utilitarian. He believes that the moral nature of an act should be determined solely by its consequences. Whether a consequence is good or bad is in part determined by the society in which such an act occurs.

While the description the Psalmist gives to such a man is fittingly applied to Singer, that does not mean that we can simply dismiss everything he has to say. If he truly is so influential – and I believe he is, or at least he is expressing ideas that are very influential in this culture – we need to engage those ideas and show them for what they are, whether good, bad, or ugly.
Click to expand...
Well perhaps we don’t dismiss Singer, although I suspect he’s much more a legend in his own mind than a real influence. Do you think many people in this country find his arguments compelling? I suspect he’d do better in Holland or Sweden. Shall we should get together and spring for a ticket?

As to the point that good or bad is determined by the society in which the act occurs, good heavens! He’s an apologist for Nazis, fascists and Islamic terrorists. After all a teenage girl strapping explosives to her belt and blowing up a school bus is considered admirable by her society (Palestinian). A Nazi frog marching thousands of Jews to a gas chamber was considered a hero in his society. Thus the rest of the world cannot look at such a reprehensible act and call it a horror? As I said before, this man raises moral relativism to an art form.

It’s NOT a matter of disbelieving in God or even a diety. Buddhists do not believe in God. But they do have concepts of noble truths and right action. Mr. Singer is just frankly nuts. I am sorry any tax dollars are going to his upkeep.

Lisa N

PS aridite GREAT POST!
 
40.png
Neithan:
I just read some of his ideas about animals, pretty ridiculous. What’s next? The liberation of insects? Equal rights for plants? “Whoa, don’t walk on the grass!. You’re murdering it!”

QUOTE]

Neithan, have you heard of Jainism? They are totally dedicated to "non violence and thus this religion DOES obsess over killing insects. They put a mask over their mouth and nose to prevent accidentally inahling a gnat. They won’t step on a bug either. I believe this is an offshoot of Hinduism. A friend of mine said that she used to live near some Jains and they were so afraid of killing bugs they wouldn’t sweep or wipe the counters…needless to say none were up for the Good Housekeeping seal of approval.

Not really on point but a bit of trivia to demonstrate how a concept can just go beyond reason.

Lisa N
Click to expand...
 
Neithan, have you heard of Jainism?
Click to expand...
I have actually… wow, there really is nothing new under the sun.

I met a Jain once, and he was super proud of being a vegan, but he walked on grass and had no worries about bugs. He told me only the priests in India were really that extreme, they walk around barefoot with their eyes constantly on the ground, avoiding every possible living thing. To think that families might do that sort’ve thing… very peculiar. Perhaps Singer should look into it.
 
Lisa N:
I agree Singer is CONSISTENT but I still maintain he doesn’t provide rationale for abortion, infanticide, etc. IOW why would the strong be justified in preying on the weak? Does he suggest we revert to a totally bestial lifestyle? Survival of the fittest, fastest and meanest? I truly don’t think that even an “Intellectual elite” like Singer suggests such a structure for society.
Click to expand...
I agree, and wouldn’t be surprised if in his personal life he’s just as sweet as can be and would never countenance any of the above, at least not personally. But this is where his “logic” takes him, and it’s exactly what can happen when nothing is sacred. There is this tendency in the hard and “soft” sciences to sort of go out to play, be “creative” etc, without respect to ethics, (what I think Augustine called the lust of the eye), pursue pure science for science’s sake, and the results are often completely immoral. THEN, like Oppenheimer after Hiroshima, only THEN they are full of regret and guilt. So casually, so carelessly do the skeptic scientists concoct their daydreams! It’s all an intellectual game.

But then others will come along who see more in Singer’s theories than he does himself, and take them to their “logical” conclusions. This is what happens when we insist, on principle, that society’s critics must come up with “solutions” because then they proffer things like communism, euthenasia and eugenics and so forth for curing all of mankind’s ills. Long before I was a Catholic I believed in original sin, and for that reason could never be bowled over by these hairbrained theories and systems. Praise be to God! :bowdown:
 
As a response to several of the posts that have been posted since my last one:

If you deny the existence of an immortal soul, then it is entirely reasonable to value other forms of life just as much as we value human life. Biologically, the only difference between a gnat and a human is in the degree of complexity. Both gnats and humans are built out of the same stuff, more or less. I would actually argue that if you deny the existence of anything spiritual it is illogical to think that human life is more valuable than other forms of life. In such a case, the only reason to value the life of one species over an other would be the impulse to preserve one’s own species.

Similarly, if there is nothing spiritual, no individual life has any special importance. No individual creature has new physical matter; it is just a recombination of what previously existed in some other form, perhaps the body of another creature. If the survival of one’s own species has value, then it is perfectly reasonable to eliminate those members of a species which are a hindrance to that goal. One who believes in this way might point to nature, where some predators and prey live together in a balance. Predator kills the weak, the slow, and the sick and in that way there is less competition among the remaining members of the preyed-upon species for the necessary resources.

Truly, if there is no inherent importance of the individual human life then in the survival-of-fittest morality, it would be “immoral” to fail to eliminate the unfit. If you want the species to survive, you need to maximize the chances for the “survival of the fittest”.

All of this is based on the false premise underlying so many of these philosophies: There is no God/There is nothing spiritual. This illustrates perfectly why logic is not an infallible way of discovering the truth of a matter. For, if they correctly follow the rules of logic, they will have no other choice but to adopt all sorts of beliefs, all of which are contrary to the Truth which has been revealed to us in the Word of God – the fullest expression of which is He who is the Word of God made flesh.

These philosophers come to believe in these falsehoods, not because they are illogical but because they are logical. Ultimately, the issue is the basic assumptions that they start with before they ever begin applying logic.

If one’s premises are in complete contradiction to the truth, he has a better chance of coming to a true conclusion if he is illogical than if he is logical. This is illustrated by those who, though they believe there is no God, find themselves believing that human life is somehow uniquely valuable, that suffering is bad, etc.

For the Law of God is written on the hearts of men, even those who are wicked. People believe many of these truths which are written on their hearts, though those beliefs are in complete contradiction with the falsehoods they so firmly adhere to.
 
I’m not entirely sure that everyone understands what I mean by making a distinction between the validity of a an argument and the truth of an argument. An argument can be both false and valid:

I present a simple argument to illustrate:

Premise 1. If Bob eats a carrot, he will turn orange.
Premise 2. Bob eats a carrot.​

  1. Conclusion: Therefore, he turns orange
The above conclusion (he turns orange) is both valid and false.

Now for another example:

P 1. If Bob eats a carrot, he will turn orange.
P 2. Bob eats a carrot.​

  1. Therefore, the conclusion “He turns orange.” is false. (He does not turn orange)
The above conclusion is both invalid and *true.
*
I’ll have to take a look at one books to remember the exact definition of validity, but in the case of this type of argument, validity would entail that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true, and if the conclusion is false, then at least one of the premises must be false.

In the first argument I presented, it can be clearly seen that if the premises are true, then the conclusion will also be true. The conclusion is false however. Bob does not turn orange, which is what we would expect. We saw him eat a carrot, so we know that premise 2 is true. Therefore, premise one must be false, which is again what we would expect: eating a carrot does not make you turn orange. Argument 1 is valid, but the conclusion “he turns orange” is false.

Now for example 2: If the premises are true, then the conclusion should be true, but the conclusion states that “He turns orange” is false. The argument is invalid, but it is true that he does not turn orange.

A simplified (and definitely not precise) explanation of validity is this: There is agreement between the premises and the conclusion, so they are true or false together.
 
Another way to describe it would be this:

Validity has to do with the form or structure of an argument. Truth has to do with the content of an argument.
 
This is a great validation of an arguement I make in just about every single forum on these boards, and it is the following principle:

If the premise is invalid, all conclusions based upon that premise will also false.
40.png
Prometheum_x:
I’m not entirely sure that everyone understands what I mean by making a distinction between the validity of a an argument and the truth of an argument. An argument can be both false and valid:

I present a simple argument to illustrate:

Premise 1. If Bob eats a carrot, he will turn orange.
Premise 2. Bob eats a carrot.​

  1. Conclusion: Therefore, he turns orange
The above conclusion (he turns orange) is both valid and false.

Now for another example:

P 1. If Bob eats a carrot, he will turn orange.
P 2. Bob eats a carrot.​

  1. Therefore, the conclusion “He turns orange.” is false. (He does not turn orange)
The above conclusion is both invalid and true.

I’ll have to take a look at one books to remember the exact definition of validity, but in the case of this type of argument, validity would entail that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true, and if the conclusion is false, then at least one of the premises must be false.

In the first argument I presented, it can be clearly seen that if the premises are true, then the conclusion will also be true. The conclusion is false however. Bob does not turn orange, which is what we would expect. We saw him eat a carrot, so we know that premise 2 is true. Therefore, premise one must be false, which is again what we would expect: eating a carrot does not make you turn orange. Argument 1 is valid, but the conclusion “he turns orange” is false.

Now for example 2: If the premises are true, then the conclusion should be true, but the conclusion states that “He turns orange” is false. The argument is invalid, but it is true that he does not turn orange.

A simplified (and definitely not precise) explanation of validity is this: There is agreement between the premises and the conclusion, so they are true or false together.
Click to expand...
 
Lisa N:
I agree Singer is CONSISTENT but I still maintain he doesn’t provide rationale for abortion, infanticide, etc. IOW why would the strong be justified in preying on the weak? Does he suggest we revert to a totally bestial lifestyle? Survival of the fittest, fastest and meanest? I truly don’t think that even an “Intellectual elite” like Singer suggests such a structure for society.

If you’ve read more than the column, can you provide me the actual LOGIC behind Singer’s conclusions? IOW how is society benefitted by allowing infanticide? Is it strictly monetary? Would he extend this philosphy to adults who become disabled, old, feeble? IOW can we kill people in wheelchairs? How about “useless” people? Can we kill the drunk panhandling on the corner? How about the junkie sleeping in a doorway?

How far does Singer go and how does he justify his philosophy?

Lisa N
Click to expand...
I have tried to talk with people about stem cell research and some of them just don’t understand that life begins with the merging of sperm and egg. So I tried arguing the stem cell issue strictly from the utilitarian point of view - ADULT stem cells (from within one’s own brain, spinal cord, or certain connective tissue, or from umbilical cords) hold far more therapeutic promise than EMBRYONIC stem cells.

Adult stem cells are the fast track to healing - proven, cheaper, and far less risky than using embryos. (What it doesn’t offer is the kick of playing God for researchers, or the false promise of indefinite life to other mortals.) But not only is the genuine promise of adult stem cell research not being talked about enough, but I’ve found when I set aside the ethical issue and argue its utilitarian benefits, people still ‘hear’ the ethical argument and believe that it is what you’re arguing! It’s as if anything touching on a life issue leads people to quit listening.

I wonder what people like Singer say about the compelling utilitarian arguments favoring adult stem cell research over embryonic research. I guess he’d gravitate toward the embryonic position without even understanding he preferred it because he’s living a spirit of rebellion rather than one of truth. This may be the underlying explanation for any of Singer’s positions.
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
Another way to describe it would be this:

Validity has to do with the form or structure of an argument. Truth has to do with the content of an argument.
Click to expand...
I disagree about Singer’s validity. When I first read through this thread I was reminded of some ethicist professor that I heard interviewed on Wisconsin Public radio. I searched wpr.org and found that this is the guy and that they have had him on a lot.

The interview was about the lack of ethics of GW Bush. The program disturbed me greatly. This guy made claims that were not logical. The thing that really disturbed me was that this guy was teaching at a prestigious university and yet his logic was horrendous.

For example: Bush was unethical because before he was elected he promised tax cuts “Because (the surplus) is your money”. But after the projected surplus became deficits Bush changed the reason for tax cuts to economic stimulus. Because he changed his reasons for promoting the tax cuts he was lying and being unethical. It doesn’t take a philosophy professor to realize that there might be multiple reasons for taking an action. Even if one of the reasons becomes no longer valid the other reasons can still be valid.

Now I am even more disturbed because of his other views AND that the search showed he is a FREQUENT guest on WPR.
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
This is a great validation of an arguement I make in just about every single forum on these boards, and it is the following principle:

If the premise is invalid, all conclusions based upon that premise will also false.
Click to expand...
That isn’t necessarily true. There may be multiple ways of arriving at a conclusion, ways which may be unknown to the person making the argument. For example:

P 1: If Bob eats a carrot, he will die.
P 2: Bob eats a carrot.​

Conclusion: Bob will die.

Premise one is false; he will not die because he eats a carrot. However, the conclusion can still be true - Bob will die from some cause, whether by old age or the bite of a rabid moth or some other such thing. I’ll now include some previously unmentioned premises:

P 1: If Bob eats a carrot, he will die.
P 2: Bob eats a carrot.
P 3: If Bob is mortal, he will die.
P 4: Bob is mortal​

Conclusion: Bob will die.

P 1 may be false, but the truth of P3 and P4 are sufficient for establishing the truth of the conclusion. In this case – and there are many arguments which take this form – the conclusion cannot be proven false because of the falsity of any of the premises.
 
Peter Singer is a monster whose utilitarian morality is the same as Adolph Hitler’s who exterminated thousands of retarded people as ‘useless eaters’. Singer’s also a hypocrite who spends a great deal of money keeping his demented mother alive and comfortable. The animal loving Singer and Hitler are so alike it’s sickening. The only difference between these monsters is that Hitler would have exterminated Singer as a Jew. The ugly atheistic philosophy of Singer is dominant in the Ivy League from B.F. Skinner to Steven Pinker. Singer is honest in taking his godless philosophy to its inevitable conclusion in advocating murder for the least of us. [Edited]
 
Sebastian said:
I have tried to talk with people about stem cell research and some of them just don’t understand that life begins with the merging of sperm and egg. So I tried arguing the stem cell issue strictly from the utilitarian point of view - ADULT stem cells (from within one’s own brain, spinal cord, or certain connective tissue, or from umbilical cords) hold far more therapeutic promise than EMBRYONIC stem cells.

Adult stem cells are the fast track to healing - proven, cheaper, and far less risky than using embryos. (What it doesn’t offer is the kick of playing God for researchers, or the false promise of indefinite life to other mortals.) But not only is the genuine promise of adult stem cell research not being talked about enough, but I’ve found when I set aside the ethical issue and argue its utilitarian benefits, people still ‘hear’ the ethical argument and believe that it is what you’re arguing! It’s as if anything touching on a life issue leads people to quit listening.

I wonder what people like Singer say about the compelling utilitarian arguments favoring adult stem cell research over embryonic research. I guess he’d gravitate toward the embryonic position without even understanding he preferred it because he’s living a spirit of rebellion rather than one of truth. This may be the underlying explanation for any of Singer’s positions.
Click to expand...
Singer himself is a utilitarian. He bases most of his positions on the distinction between human “being” and human “person”—he claims that some human beings are not human persons. This distinction comes from a misuse (in my opinion) of John Locke’s views of personhood.

Singer thinks that only the preferences of persons should be respected. Otherwise, the “rights” of human beings who are non-persons are probably even lower than the “rights” of conscious animals. This leads to his “animal rights” crusade.

The older view of personhood (older than Locke) is that persons are individual substances of a rational nature. This would entail that there is no real difference between a human being and a human person. Or, to put it another way, any human being is therefore also a human person—even if that human’s rationality is not functioning. A zygote, for example, is a substance of rational nature, as is evident from its later development, and is therefore a human being / human person.

All pro-choice people, including Singer, disagree with this view. Singer just takes it several steps further and points out that the rationale for abortion also applies to anyone, born or not, who is not functioning as a rational human “person.”

So the basic argument between us and Singer is the argument over what constitutes a human person—which definition is the better one. This is where I think Singer is the weakest, logically. He seems to simply assume that one must possess functioning rationality to be a “person.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top