On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Peter Jacobi <peter_jacobi(a)gmx.net> wrote:
As the overwhelming majority of points on the list are
absurd or pathetic, it took me a bit by surprise that I'm sort of agreeing with #51
("Wikipedia's entry on Peter Singer downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and
moral disdain for human life.")
The coverage in his article and in [[Practical Ethics]] doesn't match the controversy
it created and doesn't pinpoint *why* it created a such a controversy.
Yeah, I'm aware of {{sofixit}}.
[[User:Pjacobi]]
This would be problematic to take seriously. Singer's arguments that
seem to suggest that infanticide could be morally justifiable under
some circumstances are made in an environment of academic philosophy
where everyone recognizes that they are theoretical investigations,
and not authoritative pronouncements.
Conservatives (of the
Conservapedia.com breed, anyway) are really
freaked out by this kind of thing because they think academics want to
replace Jesus as our moral authority -- they're used to accepting
answers to these kinds of hard questions from Divine Authority
(communicated to them through their favored religious institutions,
which relieves them of the burden of independent thought). But the
whole point of philosophical investigation is to figure out this kind
of hard problem through ongoing original thought, discussion, and peer
review. That there are few (if any) sacred cows in this endeavour
enables philosophers to pursue whatever they can argue for in a
persuasive (or at least interesting) way, and while some become
committed to outlandish ideas, usually they don't take hold. Singer's
arguments on infanticide are in that category: they are recognized as
interesting, but he hardly won consensus for them.
This particular breed of conservative thinker, being ignorant of the
advantages of independent philosophizing, waxes histrionic about how
"If the Liberals succeed in replacing Jesus in the classroom, they
will command everyone to kill their babies!" They are using the
counter-intuitive results of one philosopher's intellectual exercise
as an example of the grievous perils of Liberalism (which they have
thoroughly confused with a systematic academic pursuit of independent
thought). That allowing people to think independently will inevitably
allow some folk to come to conclusions we find reprehensible is a
price we pay, and the only way not to pay it is to enforce the kind of
uniformity that they want. Their shock tactics ("A Liberal said
WHAT???") serves that agenda.
As such, maybe the article on Singer should discuss his arguments
about infanticide. As it happens, I think that is undue weight in the
current article, which is badly under-developed on issues where he has
more influence in the discipline.
- causa sui