• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

Philosophy thread, open to all

TheBanned

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
96
from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/19/60II/main329882.shtml

Singer himself says he gives 20 percent of his income to charity but ideally, he says, everyone should only keep money for basic necessities; the rest should be given away.

Singer admits he doesn't live up fully to his ideals but wishes “there were more people following me as far as I've gone, and then maybe it would be a little easier to keep going down that track.”
and


Killing a disabled infant is sometimes not wrong, given that the infant like any infant is not a person as I see it
Singer is happy to support the termination of some other peoples' lives but also admits he is unable to follow his own beliefs when it comes to money.
And this is the greatest philosopher of our age!
 


idefix

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
91
Website
en.wikipedia.org
TheBanned said:
from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/19/60II/main329882.shtml

Singer himself says he gives 20 percent of his income to charity but ideally, he says, everyone should only keep money for basic necessities; the rest should be given away.

Singer admits he doesn't live up fully to his ideals but wishes “there were more people following me as far as I've gone, and then maybe it would be a little easier to keep going down that track.”
and


[quote:l2mzjot5]Killing a disabled infant is sometimes not wrong, given that the infant like any infant is not a person as I see it
Singer is happy to support the termination of some other peoples' lives but also admits he is unable to follow his own beliefs when it comes to money.
And this is the greatest philosopher of our age![/quote:l2mzjot5]

His philosophy sounds rational. Just because he doesn't practise everything he preaches doesn't stop him being the greatest philosopher of the age. It prevents him being the greatest humanitarian of this age.
 

smiffy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
1,279
Website
cedarlounge.wordpress.com
jjcarroll said:
That's a pretty weak review, even considering the source.

This is a good collection of articles by and about Singer, if people are interested in finding out what his positions are. However, it's important, if people want to understand what he says, to read his actual writings, rather than what other people say about them, because they tend to present a very distorted view.
 

TheBanned

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
96
idefix said:
His philosophy sounds rational. Just because he doesn't practise everything he preaches doesn't stop him being the greatest philosopher of the age. It prevents him being the greatest humanitarian of this age.
It might make him a hypocrite.
 

idefix

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
91
Website
en.wikipedia.org
TheBanned said:
idefix said:
His philosophy sounds rational. Just because he doesn't practise everything he preaches doesn't stop him being the greatest philosopher of the age. It prevents him being the greatest humanitarian of this age.
It might make him a hypocrite.

And that leaves everybody else as being a hypocrite and/or wrong. It doesn't stop him being a great philosopher. If you want to discuss hypocrisy why not just say so?
 

TheBanned

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
96
idefix said:
And that leaves everybody else as being a hypocrite and/or wrong. It doesn't stop him being a great philosopher. If you want to discuss hypocrisy why not just say so?
This is a guy who presumes (and is well paid to do so ) to philosophise that infants are not people and that to state that some of these should be killed.
He himself, however, doesn't believe enough in his philosophy to practise it when a sacrifice (not life threatening) is required on his part.
 

smiffy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
1,279
Website
cedarlounge.wordpress.com
TheBanned said:
This is a guy who presumes (and is well paid to do so ) to philosophise that infants are not people and that to state that some of these should be killed.
He himself, however, doesn't believe enough in his philosophy to practise it when a sacrifice (not life threatening) is required on his part.
Again, this might make him a hypocrite, but doesn't discredit the philosophy. Especially as the two issues have nothing to do with each other (except in a broad, utilitarian sense).
 

Ulysses

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
160
smiffy said:
TheBanned said:
This is a guy who presumes (and is well paid to do so ) to philosophise that infants are not people and that to state that some of these should be killed.
He himself, however, doesn't believe enough in his philosophy to practise it when a sacrifice (not life threatening) is required on his part.
Again, this might make him a hypocrite, but doesn't discredit the philosophy. Especially as the two issues have nothing to do with each other (except in a broad, utilitarian sense).
But TheBanned doesn't need to discredit the philosophy. It's already discredited enough. Now be off with yer post-modernist moral relativist eyewash, sir.
 

Ulysses

Active member
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
160
smiffy said:
Apparently my moral compass is malfunctioning right now. :(
Ah, sure it's only a question of perspective. :D
 

stringjack

1
Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
3,887
TheBanned said:
This is a guy who presumes (and is well paid to do so ) to philosophise that infants are not people and that to state that some of these should be killed.
He himself, however, doesn't believe enough in his philosophy to practise it when a sacrifice (not life threatening) is required on his part.
One important debate in moral philosophy has to do with the nature of one's response to collective duties assuming that others are not performing their duties in turn. It is entirely possible that 20% of Singer's income actually exceeds his proportionate individual duty to help others, and it is not clear that he (or I, say) can be held responsible if you do not contribute your fair share to ensuring that people don't starve or die of easily preventable diseases.

So, do let us know, TheBanned - you've parked your brand new Porche on the tracks; there's a train coming; to save your car, you have to divert the train to where there's a young Bangladeshi orphan playing on the nearby spur.

No one's going to miss him, right?
 

Arnó

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
27
idefix said:
TheBanned said:
idefix said:
His philosophy sounds rational. Just because he doesn't practise everything he preaches doesn't stop him being the greatest philosopher of the age. It prevents him being the greatest humanitarian of this age.
It might make him a hypocrite.

And that leaves everybody else as being a hypocrite and/or wrong. It doesn't stop him being a great philosopher. If you want to discuss hypocrisy why not just say so?

It was a republican senator who said ‘we should never separate the lives we lead from the words we speak’ If he cannot live up to his own philosophy there is something fundamentally wrong with that philosophy.
 

idefix

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
91
Website
en.wikipedia.org
Arnó said:
It was a republican senator who said ‘we should never separate the lives we lead from the words we speak’ If he cannot live up to his own philosophy there is something fundamentally wrong with that philosophy.

Or there is something fundamentally wrong with Singer, like for example he's human.

Saying that giving all/most of your money to charity is wrong needs more of a justification than "Singer doesn't do it".
 

stringjack

1
Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
3,887
Arnó said:
It was a republican senator who said ‘we should never separate the lives we lead from the words we speak’ If he cannot live up to his own philosophy there is something fundamentally wrong with that philosophy.
:roll:

Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Luke 18: 22-25
 

hivemind

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
18
idefix said:
Arnó said:
It was a republican senator who said ‘we should never separate the lives we lead from the words we speak’ If he cannot live up to his own philosophy there is something fundamentally wrong with that philosophy.

Or there is something fundamentally wrong with Singer, like fore example he's human.

Saying that giving all/most of your money to charity is wrong needs more of a justification than "Singer dosen't do it".
Absolutely, this is the difference between the philosophy and the person. If I were to say that people should eat healthily and get a little excercise every day, but I can't help spending my whole weekend watching TV and eating ice cream straight from the tub does it mean my philosophy is wrong?
 

Arnó

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
27
idefix said:
Arnó said:
It was a republican senator who said ‘we should never separate the lives we lead from the words we speak’ If he cannot live up to his own philosophy there is something fundamentally wrong with that philosophy.

Or there is something fundamentally wrong with Singer, like fore example he's human.

Saying that giving all/most of your money to charity is wrong needs more of a justification than "Singer dosen't do it".
To give all your all/most of your money to charity is noble and he is to be admired for giving the amount he does. I was referring more in the context of his greatness. I think the debates that stem from the controversial things that he says are good. But I don’t consider him the greatest living philosopher. We all know we should give more and many do give 10 20 % of their income to charity. But to consider him a great philosopher I would expect more from him perhaps even discuss how we could evolve and live as a society in order to be able to give everything to charity except what we need to live on. Instead of him saying how we should be; but yet he cannot live up to that ideal.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top