PDA

View Full Version : Peter Singer



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5]

Lauralam
Oct 24th, 2008, 03:34 PM
John,
I'm new to this board and forgot to check back, but here is a link to an essay except by Singer that details some of his views on the subject.


http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1979----.htm

Johnstuff
Oct 24th, 2008, 05:19 PM
Cheers Lauralam, I'll have a read when I have a bit more time (at work at the min).

cobweb
Oct 24th, 2008, 08:24 PM
I wouldn't even know where to start on where I disagree with Singer, there are so many points, I will have a think and post them coherently later when I am not at work, but yes unfortunately many of his views are indeed speciesist.


:D ha-ha, that's what i thought when i saw this topic - actually my exact thought was 'only ONE thing you disagree with Singer about?' :satisfied:

Zero
Oct 24th, 2008, 09:36 PM
I am really surprised normally I get the internet equivalent of being slapped in the face for challenging Singer's views. :)

cobweb
Oct 24th, 2008, 09:51 PM
I am really surprised normally I get the internet equivalent of being slapped in the face for challenging Singer's views. :)

;) not from me you won't

Lauralam
Oct 25th, 2008, 04:28 AM
I am really surprised normally I get the internet equivalent of being slapped in the face for challenging Singer's views. :)

Oh, it's coming, I'm sure!!!

Lauralam
Oct 25th, 2008, 04:33 AM
:D ha-ha, that's what i thought when i saw this topic - actually my exact thought was 'only ONE thing you disagree with Singer about?' :satisfied:

I disagree with mostly just the one fundamental value comparison thing involving animal rights. However, he's got an opinion about everything, and I disagree with him on many other issues; his case for beastiality for one!! :eek: Of course, that could be lumped in with animal rights! Neigh means NO!!!

Rawj
Oct 31st, 2008, 01:10 AM
I disagree with Singer about quite a few things. he isn't even vegan. he even admitted to eating vegetarian while traveling or going out to eat with friends because not doing so is inconvenient. He is also speciesist.

dreama
Oct 31st, 2008, 02:50 AM
I am really surprised normally I get the internet equivalent of being slapped in the face for challenging Singer's views. :)

You certainly won't get slapped by me. I'd probably give you a high five instead.

I don't like Peter Singer at all. I don't like his views on animal rights. We're only human so of course we care more for those we are closest to. Who usually happen to be human. In my case one of my closest companions is a dog. The life of my guide dog Jilli would be of more value to me than many human lives I know. Simply because we're close. But would it be ethnical to conclude that dog lives should be preferable to human lives just because of the way I feel? I think not.

Then there is the question of disability. Don't get me started on that. I'm disabled so according to Peter Singer it would have been ok to kill me at birth. Charming.

He also doesn't seem to value diversity much. In his book which I read before I realised his ablist views there is an article entitled 'a page from a corperates handbook' advising people on how they should conduct themselves to 'spread the word' as it were. If you are naturally a sociable person that's all very well, but some people just aren't. We do our bit by going vegan. Wether we should go further by going fruitarian or by trying to convert everyone we meet into a meat free diet is ok. Only we shouldnt feel we have to be evengelical vegans. Any bit counts really. Veganism is much easier for me then being someone I am not. So my advise to vegans is just be yourself. If that involves dressing scruffy then that should be ok. What do others think about this?

cobweb
Oct 31st, 2008, 12:38 PM
i agree, dreama, we are who are, Singer seems to be a bit of a fascist.

eve
Nov 22nd, 2008, 10:11 PM
New article by Peter Singer on the rights of animals. Well worth a read:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/169881

LuVegan15
Nov 22nd, 2008, 10:24 PM
I didn't know he wasn't a vegan! Hmm. That's a shame.

Quantum Mechanic
Dec 1st, 2008, 10:06 AM
I don't like Peter Singer. Not so much for his animal rights views, but he is very Anti Disabled. He thinks disabled children should be killed, and also I read on the abolitionist site that he thinks that they should test on brain damaged humans instead of primates. I found that apsolutely shocking.




Well if I go somewhere that has no vegan choice, and I don't have my own food with me, I just don't eat. After all we won't starve if we miss a few meals and it should teach us to bring food with us next time.

Yeah, same here; I'm autistic and have epilepsy and mild visual impairment. Also I don't like that he is portrayed as an animal rights activist sometimes, which he is not. His messages just muddy up the waters of animal rights versus animal welfare and utilitarianism. I am glad that I did not support him from the beginning.

harpy
Dec 1st, 2008, 10:31 AM
To be fair I don't think he ever portrayed HIMSELF as an animal rights activist did he? He writes as an academic, AFAIK.

Quantum Mechanic
Dec 2nd, 2008, 06:54 AM
To be fair I don't think he ever portrayed HIMSELF as an animal rights activist did he? He writes as an academic, AFAIK.

Yeah, it's more that the philosophy behind what he says that I disagree with - even if there is agreement about causing suffering, and even though he hasn't tried to portray himself as an AR activist. Even if some similar conclusions may be drawn from some very different philosophies, that only means I will endorse the conclusions that (some of which) may just happen to be shared, not the philosophies or the person who promotes this way of looking at things that has resulted in him reaching some similar conclusions.

songlife
Dec 23rd, 2008, 08:24 PM
This just makes me so sad beyond words and I don't know how we are going to deal with it. All the misinformation and misrepresentation, the infiltration and anti-AR interest funding. We see how the propaganda has worked too, just go ask random people what they know about the subject and what they think of it.

How are we ever going to win the information war?! There must be a way.

p.s. and I reject the fallacy of Peter Singer being the father of my movement. As far as I'm concerned, he's not the champion/father of any movement I'M involved in! I think it's time for him to be communally discredited. If you feel that way too, be vocal about it that he does NOT represent and champion our cause. We must all be vocal together.

Sarabi
Jan 21st, 2009, 01:35 AM
In my experience, Peter Singer does not turn people vegan. In fact, he turns vegans into meat-eaters and convinces vegetarians that veganism is extremism. True experience - I met these people who he influenced! I can't turn my friend vegan because he is convinced that Peter Singer is the God of Animal Rights and that veganism is just a form of alienation.

I haven't read anything but excerpts and critiques of Peter Singer, and I have avoided doing so because when I first went vegan I was intense and had so many agonizing questions to answer... I was afraid that he would make my life harder, make it harder for me to stick to veganism or to rationalize it. At this point, more than three months in, I don't think he'd affect me much at all, but it seems to me like the difference between being raised Catholic and being raised Hindu. If you begin with one you're not likely to end up with the other. This is what I see between Peter Singer and veganism, even if he claims to eat "mostly vegan."

If I read some of his work, maybe I'd gain a respect for it nonetheless. I'd probably learn some things. But I will steer people away from him if I can because he is not only an apologist for meat consumption; he convinces my friends and acquaintances that veganism is TOO HARD and therefore TOO EXTREME.

And NO, he is not the "father" or the "god" of animal rights. Don't play semantics with me here. That is truly irrelevant. I personally was not turned vegan by Peter Singer, nor was anyone I know, nor was anyone I have ever heard of. It is even difficult for me to be glad that he is "mostly vegan" because anyone who hears this is going to think that ONLY the God of Animal Rights can be vegan because of his EXTREME interest in the subject matter and his wealth. By the way, I'm sure the man has enough money to buy some vegan food before getting on the plane. If it were me, I'd do that or go without or demand that they bring me some vegan food. I usually don't eat airplane food anyway because the options suck.

Sarabi
Jul 13th, 2009, 05:22 AM
For the record, Singer does not seriously care about animal rights. In his own words:


The language of rights is a convenient political shorthand. It is even more valuable in the era of thirty-second TV news clips than it was in Bentham’s day; but in the argument for a radical change in our attitudes to animals, it is in no way necessary

Source (http://human-nonhuman.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html).

Prawnil
Jul 13th, 2009, 04:02 PM
Taken in the context of the rest of that passage, I think what Peter Singer said makes some sense. It would make more sense to say 'Singer does not seriously accept the necessity of the language of animal rights.'
I've never, ever personally spoken or thought in terms of animal Rights, whatever they may be, but more in terms of due equality, protection and non-dominance. I think he's right that the language of rights is not necessary. That's by no means equivalent to saying that the language of rights is useless or misguided, though. Not at all.

Sarabi
Jul 13th, 2009, 06:46 PM
If Peter Singer does not have any clear conception of what rights are, then he shouldn't be usurping the language of animal rights.

It's not that he doesn't believe the language of rights is useless; rather, he is turning rights into a matter of linguistics, thereby usurping it of any real meaning. He is saying that the theory of rights is useless.

Prawnil
Jul 13th, 2009, 08:25 PM
He is saying that the theory of rights is useless.
I'm not at all a Peter Singer fan or expert, but if we're still talking with that passage as a basis, my interpretation is that he almost certainly isn't saying that. He made no reference to theory. I think the blog writer's interpretation is odd, almost as if they've quoted the wrong section, given the analysis that follows it.

If I ever used the phrase 'animal rights', a convenient shorthand is exactly what I would be using, precisely as Singer is describing it in that passage, for due consideration for the sensate individual & non-dominance towards other species, without a basis in dense theories of moral agency etc. that 'theory' Rights seems to whip up.
I'd imagine that Peter Singer does have a clear conception of Rights (I don't), and I don't follow how 'rights language isn't required for attitudes conducive to animal liberation' becomes 'animal rights theory is useless.' Unless he explicitly has said that elsewhere - in that case what I'm saying is nonsense.