Yet another "guru" with feet of clay.Originally Posted by Eugene
This is a critical essay of Peter Singer written by Karen Davis:
That the one about bestiality? He's just doing what he and many other folks have been telling us all for years: use reason and ignore emotion. The 'ick' feeling is an emotional response, not the end product of a line of argument.Singer's "heavy petting" article
\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t\t
\t\t\t\t\t\t\tI sided with Ashley's parents. Maybe because I'm a nurse, but I totally understand their motivations. Adults are able to make body modifications all the time to improve the quality of their lives, to stop preganancy, to regulate hormones, reduce back pain and discomfort through breast reduction bla bla bla, so why shouldn't the parents responsible for her care on a daily basis be able to make the same modifications to improve the quality of her life. One of the hardest things to do in this world as a parent is to be a carer for a child with a severe disability.
I didn't, obviously.I'm not saying as some have that the parents' decision was purely self-centered, but I still disagree with it. But if I start talking about it the only thing that will result is a HUGE off-topic digression, so I'll leave it at that
Oh, b.s. He's just saying anything he can get away with, and he can get away with just about anything since he is the great guru, God, not-to-be-questioned Peter Singer. Non-human animals cannot "consent" to sex with humans, therefore it is rape. That is what Gary Francione says, and I agree with him.Originally Posted by Dave in MPLS
That the one about bestiality? He's just doing what he and many other folks have been telling us all for years: use reason and ignore emotion. The 'ick' feeling is an emotional response, not the end product of a line of argument.
This.Originally Posted by Sevenseas
I think reason vs. emotion is often a false distinction when it comes to morality. Giving a **** about the suffering of any other being in this universe is an "emotional response" too: you cannot "logically" establish moral norms out of nothingness -- they presuppose some compassion or commitment or caring at some point or another in the inferential chain.
Considering the majority of the post was about my not caring at all for Singer, that's kinda out of left field. And as far as what is "politically correct" in the AR community, at least on the web, I'd go with the almost worshipful attitude towards just about everything that has ever come out of Gary Francione's mouth. Actually, Francione is OK, it's more his disciples that irritate me. Quite abrasive, some of 'em.But hey, continue your worship of Peter Singer, because it is "politically correct."
Most folks would agree I think, as do I. Which just makes the stubborn insistence on the primacy of the 'reason' bit all the more frustrating. 'Ignore' was not the right word - most folks that make the 'conclusions must be reached through reason' claim admit a role for emotion, but downplay it (Regan has some almost emotioncentric stuff in Case ..., Singer is dismissive bordering on denigrating the idea in Animal Liberation, yet another reason I'm not a huge fan of him) My own view is ... well, I haven't quite decided, but dual process theory seems to point in the direction I'm headed.I think reason vs. emotion is often a false distinction when it comes to morality.
Which is exactly why I no longer play on the deontological playground! Too much handwaving from secularists, too much baggage comes with reliigous/spiritual/whatever types. (Anyone concluding that must mean I end up some breed of consequentialist ... there are more than two paths on this road my friendyou cannot "logically" establish moral norms out of nothingness
Well utilitarianism is very flexible based on circumstances and involves a lot of calculating of variables (harms and benefits, and their likelihoods), whereas a different moral view might approach a situation already with pre-existing moral commitments. Maybe the reasoning part was activated due to that calculation?Originally Posted by Dave in MPLS
The bestality-reason idea came to me when I was reading some stuff on observed brain function differences between folks solving moral problems using utilitarian thinking and folks using rights-based thought. Purely observational studies that make no judgement about the conclusions the folks reach. The utilitarian thinkers showed more activity in parts of the brain associated with reasoning. These and other studies show reasoning can override 'gut feelings'. I had just read the other post that mentioned Singer and bestiality, and the possibility of a connection between a utilitarian thinker reaching an icky conclusion and the study I was reading popped to mind. It was just a thought, not anything that means too much.
That book was written 36 years ago.Originally Posted by Sevenseas
Maybe the author expected the author of Animal Liberation to support animal liberation?
Well I wouldn't say that he supports animal liberation, I would say he just opposes exploiting animals "inhumanely".Originally Posted by offthahook
That book was written 36 years ago.
I've never known anyone's views to stay exactly the same throughout their whole life. Singer still supports AL, he's just not the abolitionist people want him to be.
Just examine his reputation among disability advocates. They're even less willing than AR folks to cut him some slack.In any case, you don't have to be an "animal activist" in order to disagree with Singer's views.
I didn't disagree with a single thing he said in his nytimes article about the Ashley X case. His position is entirely reasonable and in no way extremist. In fact, I tend to agree with Singer on most issues except animal ethics and rights (his being not a rights based position). When you're advocating eating animals as long as they're treated well and "humanely slaughtered" you're out of the rights game.Originally Posted by Dave in MPLS
I was 'through with Singer' a couple years ago when he had a commentary in the NY Times about the Ashley X case and sided with the parents. I never really 'bought' some of what he said any way. After that I actually found him embarrassing. As a member of the disability community myself his essay almost felt like a personal attack.