Professional philosophy news

The Lethal Philosophy of Peter Singer

James Franklin (New South Wales) critiques Peter Singer (Princeton) at some length. He begins:

It is hard to believe that most of those who have awarded Singer this and other honours have really understood what he has said. That is not due to any obfuscation or obscurity on Singer’s part. He has been perfectly clear and has never changed or qualified his opinions. It is his readers who have not been prepared to face his absolute clarity. Surely he must have been talking about severely disabled babies who might be better off dead? Well, no …


One response to “The Lethal Philosophy of Peter Singer

  1. Allen Wood October 17, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    I do not agree with Peter Singer’s moral theory, or his conclusions about the rights of animals, or the obligation of individuals in affluent nations, or the permissibility of infanticide. But :Peter Singer is not guilty — directly or indirectly — of the death of anyone, nor is he a threat to the rights of any person. Religious fanatics whose views Mr Franklin appears to share, are guilty of threatening the rights of all women over their own bodies, and they are guilty of inciting fanatics who think exactly as they do of murdering health care providers. The world is a better place because Peter Singer is in it. It is a far worse place because people these fanatics are in it.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s