1

As I recall, he actually has, at times, said we could get by with even less. If memory serves, a few years ago he stated that we should all be taxed at a rate of 33% up to $33,000 and that after that the income tax rate should be 100%.

Under that system, we'd only get $22,000 less whatever we had to pay in other taxes.

As you say, there's absolutely nothing stopping him from following that plan voluntarily.

2

Singer is great. He draws conclusions that other pomos are afraid to draw. It is good to have your pomo friends read his ethics books. They almost always disagree with him, but they can't help but endorse him. If nothing else, this is a great way to confront them with their flawed ways when they won't listen to you. They know he is wrong, but cannot say why. We can.

3

"If Singer were a teacher at your local high school..."

...he'd be lucky if we let him live the rest of his life in a wheelchair. Personally, i won't grant him the right to breath the local air...

Surely his ethics include vigilantism...

4

Singer's inconsistencies have been a persistent embarrassment to him - to resolve them he would either have to change his lifestyle even further, or change his views. So far he lives with the inconsistency but acknowledges it, which makes him far from unique in the first part, almost unique in the second. Neither impugns the ideas themselves, only Singer as a person who lives up to his ideals.

As far as that goes, what he has done is change his life much further than most people are willing to on the basis of intellectual conviction alone. He donates at least 20% of his income each year to charity, and, famously, became vegetarian after simply sitting down and thinking about the animal-rights issue. Regarding his moral convictions, he not only promotes animal rights but has begun a project to demonstrate the mental capacities of apes as a basis for proving his claims about their moral capacity (a brave move, since it leaves open the possibility of disproving himself). When challenged on why he doesn't go all the way and live his ideals perfectly, he points out, correctly, that he has done more than most people, and that if everyone did even as much as him many of the problems he discusses would be much further along to being solved. That's not a defense against the charge of inconsistency, but it is a defense against the charge of complete hypocrisy. (Note also that some of his suggestions require others' cooperation to implement. We could all live comfortably on $22,000/yr if that was the maximum income, but it's much harder for one person to live on $22K if everyone else is spending at an income level 2, 3, or more times that high.)

All this is about Singer as a person, however - an issue that, one would think, matters only to Singer and his friends. What really strikes me as significant in a larger way is the conservative insistence that certain ideas simply don't need to be listened to. Among ethicists, Singer is universally admired for the clear-eyed logic he brings to his arguments. It is no exaggeration to say that he is widely regarded as the most intelligent theoretical ethicist working today, by a professional philosophical community that includes almost no one who agrees with his most extreme conclusions. This is because they have read, thought about, and recognized the intellectual power in his arguments while disagreeing with some of his basic principles.

You, however, claim he is "the least essential writer" when what you really mean is that you just don't agree with him. As evidence of his uselessness, you merely cite a bunch of his conclusions - as if the conclusions can be used to disprove the arguments that lead to them without even considering those arguments in the first place. Brandon does the same in saying "They almost always disagree with him, but they can't help but endorse him. . . . They know he is wrong, but cannot say why. We can." Apparently, conservatives can say what is wrong with arguments that are irrefutable from a non-conservative perspective. If so, how are you refuting these arguments other than by simply holding to your conservative ideals and rejecting what does not conform? That is not refutation, it is - like declaring unacceptable ideas "non-essential" - merely intellectual disengagement.

Many people, including many who would be inclined to accept some (but not all) of Singer's basic moral principles, find his positions disagreeable or wrong. None who actually engage his arguments find them stupid or poorly constructed. There are reasonable grounds for disagreeing with Singer, but you seem to insist - as a point of pride - on disagreeing on unreasonable grounds, to insist on not engaging his arguments because you have determined not to accept his conclusions before you know what they are. You have come out against his book not only before reading it - almost standard for culture-war conservatives - but before it has even been printed!

More and more, conservatism degenerates into self-parody.

5

Peter Singer is not "universally admired" in academic circles: I should know, since I live in those so-called circles. Yes, he argues quite flawlessly; if you accept his premises you might very well have to accept his conclusions. And probably a lot more beside; that is why many Germans can't stand Singer. He reminds them of the beginning of Nazism, though Singer, as he reminds us, is Jewish - so he couldn't *possibly* have any links to such a philosophy!

Well, the truth is that he has no link to the most famous minor premiss that the Nazi's introduced, which was that "Jews are unworthy of life." But he accepts the major premiss, that there is human life unworthy of life. This is just where it started in Germany and why he makes some Germans shudder. And others, too.

But listen: you think that it is irrational, or unwarrented, or intellectually subpar somehow to reason directly from Singer's conclusions to the falsity of his arguments.

But is it? If I tell you, "By the way, I think that children ought to be tortured," do you wait and find out if my reasoning is correct? Perhaps it is flawless. Perhaps you even accept every premiss I based the argument upon. Yet the right thing to do is surely to immediately discount my argument - because we can be certain that, when we construct moral theories, one of the reasons is precisely so as to rule out such things as the torturing of children. Any theory which ends up endorsing that which was to be condemned ought to be condemned itself. In the case where you accepted every premiss of the argument, you will now be certain that some premiss much be changed or abandoned, though you will not necessarily know which (or, perhaps, you will have to change your ideas about rational argumentation). Virtue is prior to philosophy.

So when someone proposes moral theories which expressly allow or encourage that which is taken as a basic instance of immorality, and is incapable of recognizing that, the best thing to do is to consistently discount their opinions, because they have already shown that there is something quite untrustworthy in their intellectual makeup. For this reason it is quite possible to know, ahead of time, that any book of Peter Singer's is likely going to be toxic, unless it sports a title such as "Why I Was Wrong All Along" or "I Was Just Kidding-Really!"

I have no problem with Singer's inability to live consistently with his philosophy; there is no merely mortal man who has ever done so. In fact, his inability to do so is in some cases is a mark of his moral virtue.

6

Kevin,

You never cease to amaze me.

It's not that I cannot refute Singer's arguments. Contrary to what you claim, Singer is prized mostly as a provocatuer rather than a thinker and his ethical system is rather naive. I could spend time tearing his ethical system apart but there really is no need, just as their is no need for me to restate the argument against Nazism, murder, or incest before I point out that they are all immoral. While it's no substitue for aa rational arguement, the "smell test" is often all that is needed to discern that something is fishy. Singer's ethics are a joke and anyone who takes him seriously should be ashamed to call themselves philosophers.

If you want to see self-parody, Kevin, just look at some of your own posts. You appear to be willing to defend any ludicrious position as long as it comes from the Left. I remember when I was a liberal how the argument mattered more than the truth. I think that is the trap that you are falling into. Provoking the ire of conservatives seems to be more important to you than anything else.

7

Joe:

Really, ad hominem attacks? First against singer, and now against Kevin? I frankly expect better of you.

8

T.,

My comment was not intended as an ad hominem attack. I wasn't trying to dismiss his argument by calling him names but simply trying to help him see where he is going astray.

I like Kevin. We obviously have different political views but I think that most of the time he adds interesting and worthy comments. But at other times I think he is simply taking the "contra conservative" stance without it coming from a sincere conviction.

His defense of Singer just because he is on the same end of the political spectrum would be like me defending David Duke. If I really believed that he thought Singer was worthy of defending then I wouldn't have said anything (but then I would have lost a lot of respect for Kevin as well).

I appreciate you and Kevin and other "loyal opposition" commenters. But I ask the same of you that I expect from myself -- to defend a position from what you honestly believe and not because it is the standard partisan position to take.

9

Joe,

I have to agree with tgirsh on this one. While I am confident that Singer is wrong, this is an ad hominem argument. (tgirsh, by calling an ad hominem argument an "ad hominem attack," are you not also making an ad hominem type assertion?).

While it is reasonable to discount a person's argument because he has argued incorrectly before, that should merely be considered a shortcut, not a refutation of what he argues. Hypocracy is the weakest form of argument. Everyone acts hypocritically at times. Does that mean that no one is qualified to argue moral precepts?

10

Hey JBP,

I agree. My intention was not to make an argument against Singer's system of ethics. The whole point was that Singer undercuts his own credibility in writing a book on Bush's "convenient ethics" when he is so inconsistent himself.

I'll have to wait until the book is out to see if Singer has a solid argument against Bush. But in the meantime I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out that Singer is not the most credible person to write such a book.

11

As far as that goes, what he has done is change his life much further than most people are willing to on the basis of intellectual conviction alone.