1

It is perhaps relevant to acknowledge the accuracy of Mr. Singer's argument (excepting the economics). Certainly he makes subtle flaws in the experimentation arguments by indulging in anthropomorphism in the experimentation arguments - but they do not change the outcome. He also makes error in the "freeing animals" argument due not to conclusion but due the failings of the emancipators to find "homes" versus simply loosing the animals into the wild to cause much mischief - a failing of the implementor not the ethics. And a further one mentioned later on.

All else is quite consistant and sensible if, and only if, two considerations are true. One the human being has no divie spark. Two if human beings are every bit equal to all other animals.

Now, to the first, there is room for debate and I will not indulge it further. However, the second point is patently false to Utilitarians and all others.

Simply put, the homo sapiens animal is not on equal moral footings with that of his livestock. This can be seen as true throughout nature among all social animals. Given that man is at the top of the foodchain (with the possible exception of the big cats - I have no idea of their use as a foodsource) then all other animals in the kingdom are subordinent and of less value than that of any member of the species homo sapiens. The speciesism that he speaks to is patently false within the framework of Utilitarianism due to its willful ignorance of the concept of the predator/prey relationships.

In shorter terms, any "thinker" that accepts Utilitarianism arguments without acknowledging the fact that livestock are subordinent to members of the pack is simply engaging in speciesism themselves. Certainly not pro, but anti.

This can plainly be seen in his argument of anticipation of pain or abduction with only those animals that are "fuzzy". This Arrogance of Beauty neglects to account for anticipation of pain being a learned response to previous stimuli that is shared even with common experimental stock such as the Aplysia (slug) as well as mammals. This is base speciesism of the "fuzzy" against the "cold blooded" and puts paid to any moral superiority he could claim to have as a champion for species equivalency.

Other than that, all his conclusions are accurate so long as one fails to account that in Nature, a most Utilitarian creature, that prey is always subordinant to the predator. So he not only fails the test of Religion he fails the test of his own ethics as well.

There are further problems with his argumentation that can be expressed from a Utilitarian standing but this should suffice for now to show his own hypocrisy in regards his self expressed ethical 0framework. With that in mind, he is not worth regard from those that espouse Religion, nor those who are opposed to it. Only those that would commit self-genocide could be swayed by his dissmebling idiocy.

2

Joe:

For counterpoint, see "Whatever Happened to the Human Race" by Francis Schaeffer.

3

Back in the '70's, I was a Peter Singer disciple. In one of his books, he made Christ for being unethical for casting the demons into the swine and causing them to die in the sea. After I was saved, I was dumbfounded at his take in missing Jesus' Lordship over His creation, as well as the reality of the spiritual universe. Has eyes, but cannot see.

4

I'm appalled that you would post this. Peter Singer is a Jew, who lost his grandfather in the Holocaust.

"The philosopher Peter Singer's grandfather David Oppenheim embodied all the values of the Enlightenment: a belief in the power of reason, education, knowledge in the service of mankind. In 1943 the forces of unreason overwhelmed this quiet, learned man, a classics scholar, and he died in the Nazi camp known as Theresienstadt."

To compare him to Eichmann is despicable, and trivializes the Holocaust. At the same time, in some of your readers' minds, it will justify the Holocaust. Many will read this article and think that those dirty Jews got what they had coming.

Is the Evangelical Outpost anti semitic? Recently you posted an article suggesting that race is little more than a social construct, which would imply that there's no such thing as Jews, and even if there is it's not important. This makes ludicrous the whole notion of God's Chosen People. Now you're comparing Peter Singer, whom most people know is Jewish, and many know lost family in the Holocaust, to the creators of that very Holocaust.

Shame on you.

5

Ron Goldstein: I'm appalled that you would post this. Peter Singer is a Jew, who lost his grandfather in the Holocaust.

With all due respect, Mr. Goldstein, I think Joe has done a good job of illustrating why Singer and Eichmann are comparable. It's their worldview, their philosophies about what gives life value or denies it, that permit them to dispassionately sanction its destruction for utilitarian ends.

And Mr. Singer may have Jewish blood in his veins, but nowhere do I see any hint of the fear of God exhibited by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, much less the prophets. The faith of Mr. Singer's fathers should be informing his views on this matter; that man is made in the image of God and has been set over His creation. That we are fearfully and wonderfully made and that God knows us before we are ever knit together in our mothers' wombs.

I say shame on Mr. Singer for failing to recognize the evil philosophy that led to atrocities that claimed his own grandfather's life and millions of others.

6

Ron,

I'm appalled that you would post this. Peter Singer is a Jew, who lost his grandfather in the Holocaust.

While I’m sorry for his loss, that doesn’t give him a free pass. Singer’s views are despicable and would warm the heart of any Nazi. The fact that he is Jewish doesn’t change that fact.

"The philosopher Peter Singer's grandfather David Oppenheim embodied all the values of the Enlightenment: a belief in the power of reason, education, knowledge in the service of mankind. In 1943 the forces of unreason overwhelmed this quiet, learned man, a classics scholar, and he died in the Nazi camp known as Theresienstadt."

The Nazis weren’t motivated by “unreason.” Germany was one of the most educated places on the planet, a fount of learining and knowledge. Nazism was a result of blindly following Enlightenment values without any guidance from a Judeo-Christian morality.

To compare him to Eichmann is despicable, and trivializes the Holocaust.

No it doesn’t. Pointing out the fact that Singer espouses ideas that are different than but just as bad as the Nazis does not “trivialize the Holocaust.” Keep in mind that this is the intellectual godfather of the group that compared the slaughter of chickens to the Holocaust.

At the same time, in some of your readers' minds, it will justify the Holocaust. Many will read this article and think that those dirty Jews got what they had coming.

Now you are the one that should be ashamed of yourself for making such a statement. Even though I disagree with many of my regular readers I would never stoop so low as to imply that they are anti-semites.

Is the Evangelical Outpost anti semitic?

You don't read this blog much, do you? No, I'm not anti-semitic. In fact, one disgusting little racist (whose blog I will not mention) says that I make his stomach turn because I said I have a “deep-rooted affection for Judaism."

Recently you posted an article suggesting that race is little more than a social construct, which would imply that there's no such thing as Jews, and even if there is it's not important.

The Jews are an ethnic group, not a race.

"It is a common assumption, and one that sometimes seems ineradicable even in the face of evidence to the contrary, that the Jews of today constitute a race, a homogeneous entity easily recognizable. From the preceding discussion of the origin and early history of the Jews, it should be clear that in the course of their formation as a people and a nation they had already assimilated a variety of racial strains from people moving into the general area they occupied. This had taken place by interbreeding and then by conversion to Judaism of a considerable number of communities. . . .

"Thus, the diversity of the racial and genetic attributes of various Jewish colonies of today renders any unified racial classification of them a contradiction in terms. Despite this, many people readily accept the notion that they are a distinct race. This is probably reinforced by the fact that some Jews are recognizably different in appearance from the surrounding population. That many cannot be easily identified is overlooked and the stereotype for some is extended to all - a not uncommon phenomenon" (Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, 1971, vol. 3, p. 50).

This makes ludicrous the whole notion of God's Chosen People.

No, it doesn’t. The Jew’s were “God’s Chosen People” because he chose them, not because they were racially distinct. Perhaps you will recall that a person could become a “Jew” in a way that he couldn’t become, say, Caucasian.

Now you're comparing Peter Singer, whom most people know is Jewish, and many know lost family in the Holocaust, to the creators of that very Holocaust.

Actually, I doubt very seriously that most people know that. I didn’t. And while I empathize with his horrible loss, that doesn’t change the fact that he espouses views that would lead to future disasters on par with the Holocaust.

7

I appreciate Mr. Goldstein's post, because it got me thinking about the cozy relationship Singer's thinking has with Naziism. Try this:

On The Acceptability of Killing Newborn Jews

On How Killing a Sick Jew Can Lead to Happiness

Why It's Better to Experiment on Jews than on Animals

And so on. As soon as you wander out on the slippery slope of what constitutes a perfect human being, and anything that does not is merely fodder for the amusement and security of the rest of us, there is no going back. Naziism believed in the un-humanity of the Jewish race. How is Singer's writing on infants, on the retarded, on the elderly, any different?

I actually did not know that Peter Singer had relatives die in the Nazi camps. If true, that is more a damning indictment of his views than anything else. And to give him a pass because of his accidental birth into the Jewish race, though obviously not the Jewish faith, is despicable.

8

It's interesting that this post lacks even a single sentence engaging or criticising the arguments Singer makes. You seem to think that you can prove he is wrong simply by reciting his controversial conclusions - that is, that his ideas are wrong simply because you think they are wrong.

Your quotes are not out of context but they do not include the lines of reasoning that lead Singer to his conclusions. Most readers who are not familiar with Singer or Utilitarianism will not even understand them - but if they, or you, think they can dismiss them on grounds of what you have presented alone, then they are engaged in non-rational rejection of ideas they don't find comfortable, not an honest conflict between ideas they do or don't support. Your opposition to Singer here consists, literally, of name-calling; making him "Eichmann," in your mind, seems to be a form of political debate. If your position is as bankrupt as that, perhaps it's not worth agreeing with.

As for the "Holocaust" stuff, I think you are right that the "anti-Semitic" accusation is unfair, but that doesn't make your rhetoric any more reasonable. Nothing Singer says - even if it were likely to become policy, which it is not - "would lead to future disasters on par with the Holocaust" any more than Nietzsche led to the original Holocaust. Tyrants and murderers can always find highflown qotations to dress up their crimes, but the quotes don't cause the crimes. Germany embraced Nazism for all the usual reasons: nationalism, racism, frustration born from economic collapse and violent (WWI) humiliation, and the economic and political dysfunction of the existing system. Strong and bellicose leadership preaching national pride and military strength, repudiating the limitations of international treaties, offering simplistic solutions to complex problems, and targeting social frustrations on despised minorities and imagined enemies of the state, found a ready ear; when the public got what it wanted, vague reports of abuses at secret detention facilities were not enough to withdraw support from the perceived "saviors," who took advantage of that support to do whatever they chose without restraint. If the US ever embraces concentration camps, secret hearings without evidence or counsel, and execution under military auspices without due process (. . . did I say if . . .?), it won't be left-wing philosophy professors behind it all.

On a similar point, note that you seem to be offended by Singer's analogy between animal liberation and slave liberation, but you have repeatedly made the same analogy between abortion and slavery. I have pointed out in detail the ways that fetuses differ from slaves, to which your response is that they are both "human beings"; Singer is motivated by his perception of similarities between domestic animals and slaves (they are both captive, and both can feel pain - which latter point puts them ahead of fetuses), to which I suppose your response would be that they are not both human beings. Singer, obviously, would agree with you that slaves are human beings and animals are not, but that, for him (as for me) is not decisive. You refuse to acknowledge that rational people can hold grounds for attributing moral worth to creatures other than their being "human beings" - which leads you to simply gape at Singer's positions as if they were self-evidently wrong simply because he proceeds from different (and more rationally grounded) premises. Your persistent refusal to address the core question - who is a "moral person," and why? - while bluntly asserting your own moral perceptions (abortion is like slavery) and rejecting differing perceptions (animal-keeping is like slavery) without discussion is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "lalalalala" to avoid unwelcome ideas. It's hardly a reason for anyone to agree with you.

Finally, you seem to find it incomprehensible that Singer holds positions of respect and responsibility in the scholarly world. The reason is, quite simply, that he is widely regarded as one of the clearest thinkers and writers on philosophical ethics, and formidably knowledgeable and insightful on the subject. (It is not, by the way, the result of some sort of left-wing academic conspiracy to promote his ideas. Singer's general theoretical position - "Utilitariansim" - is a standard ethical theory but decidedly in the minority among ethicists; the more extreme of his particular conclusions from it - including some of the ones you cite above - are held by very few. But they recognize there is a rational basis for his positions, and are prepared to agree or disagree on rational and reasoned grounds, as you have not done.) Singer is simply one of the best people in the field - an opinion held by the many who disagree with him as well as the few who do. One feature of this, and of good thinking in general - one it might be well to keep in mind - is that he is willing to engage, charitably and intelligently, positions he does not agree with as well as ones he does. The reason he was asked to write the Encyclopedia Brittanica entry on general ethics (not just on his particular version of it), and to edit three large volumes on general ethics from a major academic publisher, and to edit two of the most important general journals in his field, and has been awarded a vast number of similar positions and honors, is that he is recognized as a scholar in the traditional sense. There's something to be said for that.

9

Peter Singer is good for virtue ethicists. He is consistently utilitarian and he draws the utilitarian's beliefs to their absurd conclusions. It should be easy to argue against him by appealing to the banality of his conclusions.

Of course, making the banal mundane is dangerous, and once people are drawn to him because his ethics have become garden variety tripe then there is little hope.

10

Kevin,

It's interesting that this post lacks even a single sentence engaging or criticising the arguments Singer makes.

The purpose was not to engage in a critical analysis of Singer’s arguments but merely to point out what those positions are. Some day – when I feel like shooting at barrel fish -- I will make a detailed criticism of his arguments.

You seem to think that you can prove he is wrong simply by reciting his controversial conclusions - that is, that his ideas are wrong simply because you think they are wrong.

I’m not trying to prove anything. Yes, I think he is wrong. Most sane people would. But I am not making an argument for why he is wrong, nor is that the intention of the post.

Your quotes are not out of context but they do not include the lines of reasoning that lead Singer to his conclusions. Most readers who are not familiar with Singer or Utilitarianism will not even understand them - but if they, or you, think they can dismiss them on grounds of what you have presented alone, then they are engaged in non-rational rejection of ideas they don't find comfortable, not an honest conflict between ideas they do or don't support.

You have to keep in mind that not everyone worships at the altar of the Enlightenment. Naturally I think it is important to make a rational argument for why Singer’s views should be rejected. But that does not mean that I should automatically reject the “wisdom of repugnance” or my moral and religious intuitions on the matter. If I knew that a Dahmeresque monster was planning to grind you up and have your flesh for brunch I wouldn’t wait until I had engaged in a rational argument for rejecting such an idea. I know what is “right” and “wrong” and can apply them in the broad sense without having to flesh out all the details.

Your opposition to Singer here consists, literally, of name-calling; making him "Eichmann," in your mind, seems to be a form of political debate. If your position is as bankrupt as that, perhaps it's not worth agreeing with.

My reason for associating him with Eichmann was to draw the parallel between the “banality of evil” that Arendt found in the Nazi and I see in this "ethicist."

On a similar point, note that you seem to be offended by Singer's analogy between animal liberation and slave liberation, but you have repeatedly made the same analogy between abortion and slavery. I have pointed out in detail the
ways that fetuses differ from slaves, to which your response is that they are both "human beings"; Singer is motivated by his perception of similarities between domestic animals and slaves (they are both captive, and both can feel
pain - which latter point puts them ahead of fetuses), to which I suppose your response would be that they are not both human beings. Singer, obviously, would agree with you that slaves are human beings and animals are
not, but that, for him (as for me) is not decisive.

In that case, I would say that Singer is an idiot. All slaves were once fetuses but they were never chickens. Surely even Singer can see that simple fact.

You refuse to acknowledge that rational people can hold grounds for attributing moral worth to creatures other than their being "human beings" - which leads you to simply gape at Singer's positions as if they were self-evidently wrong simply because he proceeds from different (and more rationally grounded) premises.

Singer’s position is self-evidently wrong rather it is “rational” or not. I also believe that his views are not rationally grounded because he has no foundation for reason.

Your persistent refusal to address the core question - who is a "moral person," and
why? - while bluntly asserting your own moral perceptions (abortion is like slavery) and rejecting differing perceptions (animal-keeping is like slavery) without discussion is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "lalalalala" to avoid unwelcome ideas. It's hardly a reason for anyone to agree with you.

Finally, you seem to find it incomprehensible that Singer holds positions of respect and responsibility in the scholarly world. The reason is, quite simply, that he is widely regarded as one of the clearest thinkers and writers on philosophical ethics, and formidably knowledgeable and insightful on the subject.

Singer is not a philosopher. He is a sophist. Unfortunately, in modern academia, sophistry is often esteemed higher than wisdom.

(It is not, by the way, the result of some sort of left-wing academic conspiracy to promote his ideas. Singer's general theoretical position - "Utilitariansim" - is a standard ethical theory but decidedly in the minority among ethicists; the more extreme of his particular conclusions from it - including some of the ones you cite above - are held by very few. But they recognize there is a rational basis for his positions, and are prepared to agree or disagree on rational and reasoned grounds, as you have not done.)

You seem to be of the opinion that if someone has a “rational basis” for an opinion that it ipso facto becomes worthy of respect. The biggest problem with Singer’s ethics is that he himself doesn’t even attempt to live by them. He is nothing more than a hypocritical sophist who spins ethical theories that he wouldn’t really expect people to live by.

Singer is simply one of the best people in the field - an opinion held by the many who disagree with him as well as the few who do.

No, Singer is not one of the best in the field. The fact that you could make such a claim shows just how debased the field of ethics has become.

One feature of this, and of good thinking in general - one it might be well to keep in mind - is that he is willing to engage, charitably and intelligently, positions he does not agree
with as well as ones he does.

I am being charitable to Singer. His views are on the extreme fringe and are on par with Holocaust-deniers and white supremacists. Just because he has a position at a prestigious university does not make him inherently worthy of attention.

…is that he is recognized as a scholar in the traditional sense. There's something to be said for that.

You’re right, it does. It shows that we have divorced scholarship from morality and common sense.

11

"The more they change the more they stay the same". I think that seems to fit the librals very well.

12

I agree with one of the previous commenters. Singer's positions are important in that they expose the endgame of utilitarianism. Since Bentham's time, it has been absolutely clear that utilitarianism rests wholly on a subjective judgment about utility. There is simply no objective equivalent to "volts" or "kilograms" of utility. That's why Singer can advocate others live on $30K/yr, yet he enjoys the benefits of a Yale salary/benefits as well as any honoraria he pick up and, apparently, an inheritance.

Now, who was Bentham's gold standard for utility judgments? In lieu of his never-developed utilitarian "calculus", it is Bentham, of course. And one sees precisely the same arrogance in Singer's writing.

Naturally, monsters like Bentham and Singer do well in academia (at least in the humanities, where there is no requirement for empirical rigor unlike, say, the mechanical engineering department). Saying extreme, counterintuitive things (as the postmodernists have done) attracts intellectual admiration from others similarly unconstrained by empirical rigor.

But what bothers me most about utilitarianism is its wide modern application in the law. Bentham himself was trained in law, not philosophy, and was interested in law, penal reform, and theories of legislation. Absent Bentham's utilitarian "calculus", of course, it is up to judges, wardens, and legislators to divine the essences, "emanations", and "penumbras" (sound familiar?) that permit utilitarian interpretations. Utilitarianism has all but elbowed out out the former English common law (which formed the basis for American law, in the main), as described by Blackstone. Blackstone was a believer in natural rights, such as those described in the US Constitution.

As a result, we see more and more judicial tyranny in the US. A man's property is seized because he removes a mountain of discarded tires with standing rainwater in them, thereby destroying a "wetland". A man is deprived of property for poisoning a rat. Employers are forced to hire people they would not, under other circumstances, hire. The list goes on, and is familiar to all readers of this weblog.

It so happens, though, that I was brought to an abrupt understanding of the social pinnacle of utilitarianism. Last August, I visited the Holocaust Museum (one of the commenters noted the Holocaust, interestingly enough) in DC. Clearly, the racial theories of the National Socialists viewed Jews as having little, if any, social utility. Neither did the handicapped, the retarded, or the insane. Presumably, hemophiliacs would have eventually ended up in the gas chambers (assuming they didn't - I just don't know).

13

George:

A man's property is seized because he removes a mountain of discarded tires with standing rainwater in them, thereby destroying a "wetland". A man is deprived of property for poisoning a rat.

14

tgirsch, my pleasure.

Rats: Brief excerpt...
"'I went into my garden in the backyard to pick the first generation of tomatoes,' says Frank Balun of Hillside, New Jersey. 'So many were mushy at the bottom. Something was eating them.' Four days later, for killing a rat, Balun was facing a half a year in jail, $1,250 in fines, and a media frenzy-Court TV, UPI, French journalists, the New York Post, 'A Current Affair,' and TV channels 2, 4,5,7,9, and 11."

Tires: Brief excerpt...
"On August 21, 1986, my father signed an agreement of sale and obtained title insurance for the dump across our street. He wanted to build a twelve-thousand five-hundred square foot building that would expand his business and enhance the community. At the very least, an ugly eyesore of a dump would be cleaned up. He removed well over five thousand tires from this dump, approximately a thousand of which were blocking the stormwater drainage ditch. However, within months of acquiring this property, notices were sent to my father from the Army Corps of Engineers informing him of the presence of wetlands. These supposed wetlands stemmed from a “stream” that was connected to “navigable waters of the United States. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, a “stream” never ran through our newly acquired dump. From the beginning, it was a stormwater drainage ditch that was installed by the Township of Morrisville in 1936. [...] Because of Army Corps’ actions, my father was civilly sued and had a judgement laid against him. My father was sentenced to three years in prison and a $202,000 fine."

15

George:

On the rats story, you'll forgive me if I don't think the CATO institute is exactly an unbiased source, but in any case, it's a ten-year-old case, and it was dismissed, and they fixed the law in question as a result. That is, in your rat example, common sense actually won out. And by the way, of what property was he deprived? I didn't see that in the story.

Regarding the tires, it seems that the EPA tells the story quite differently:

Even prior to purchasing the 14-acre tract in 1987, Mr. Pozsgai was told by private consultants that the site contained wetlands subject to permitting requirements of Section 404. He purchased the property at a reduced price due to the presence of wetlands, and then proceeded to ignore no fewer than ten warnings from EPA and Corps field staff to stop filling the wetlands without first getting a Section 404 permit. He also defied a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by a Federal court judge. In fact, the government documented violations of the TRO on videtape, thanks to the cooperation of neighbors whose homes were being flooded as a result of Mr. Pozsgai’s filling in his wetlands.

And in either case, even if you took your stories at face value (which I didn't), there's a common thread here: what you're doing is taking specific misapplications of a law, and using it to assert that the entire law should go. Eliminate, don't fix.

Should we make murder legal, since people are sometimes wrongly convicted of murder? That's essentially the same argument as the one you seem to be making.

16

(By the way, how is it that a judge ultimately siding with your protagonist qualifies as "judicial tyranny?")