I’m pretty confused by this ontology that includes Peter Singer as a radical.
One of Peter’s historic contributions to human society is increased attention to animal welfare. I know for a fact that he supports thoughtful reduction of suffering, in a way that is not militant or vegan.
Another one of Peter Singer’s contributions is that it seems wrong to let a child die to avoid damaging a suit.
In the past, Peter’s income has exceeded 7 figures USD, he donates large amounts of it, maybe about ⅔, which I think is far from radical. In contrast, Will MacAskill reportedly keeps his spending at about 26K pounds.
For completeness, my understanding is that, as a philosophical principle, Peter supports the choice of parents to end their own child’s severely disabled life, especially or only as an option for those parents who may understand their newborn is suffering[1].
I do not find the above points radical compared to other narratives that I think could be made about EA.
For a number of reasons that are separate and distinct from points made in this comment, I think it would be good to either not make simple negative characterizations of Peter Singer, or to engage much more comprehensively.
I think a lot of low quality discussion will produce more work for certain people, or have consequential effects in ways that some people may not expect.
If a newborn infant is likely to have a really bad life, then I think we shouldn’t say this life must be preserved no matter what. Now, I’m not in a position to judge which infants are going to have good lives or bad lives. The parents of those children are in the best position to judge, provided they get accurate information on the prospects of their child and the impact the child will have on them and their family as well.
You selected three positions that Singer holds that are not radical—this does not make him non-radical. Singer’s views on the moral demandingness of giving and vegetarianism are certainly radical by most standards. Nobody had published these views before The Life You Can Save or Animal Liberation. Whether or not you agree with his views on the killing of severely disabled children, it was also highly radical at the time of publication.
You are ascribing an implicit value-judgment on radicalism, when being a radical is not ceteris paribus a bad thing. I only had two sentences to write this comment, so I couldn’t elaborate, but when I included Singer it was because he’s closely associated with the idea that every dollar spent is a dollar that could be donated, so most spending and ineffectively donating are morally wrong. This is a radical consequentialist view (which I don’t necessarily disagree with btw) that differs greatly from, for example, Giving What We Can’s recommended pledge to give 10% of income.
I’m pretty confused by this ontology that includes Peter Singer as a radical.
One of Peter’s historic contributions to human society is increased attention to animal welfare. I know for a fact that he supports thoughtful reduction of suffering, in a way that is not militant or vegan.
Another one of Peter Singer’s contributions is that it seems wrong to let a child die to avoid damaging a suit.
In the past, Peter’s income has exceeded 7 figures USD, he donates large amounts of it, maybe about ⅔, which I think is far from radical. In contrast, Will MacAskill reportedly keeps his spending at about 26K pounds.
For completeness, my understanding is that, as a philosophical principle, Peter supports the choice of parents to end their own child’s severely disabled life, especially or only as an option for those parents who may understand their newborn is suffering[1].
I do not find the above points radical compared to other narratives that I think could be made about EA.
For a number of reasons that are separate and distinct from points made in this comment, I think it would be good to either not make simple negative characterizations of Peter Singer, or to engage much more comprehensively.
I think a lot of low quality discussion will produce more work for certain people, or have consequential effects in ways that some people may not expect.
If a newborn infant is likely to have a really bad life, then I think we shouldn’t say this life must be preserved no matter what. Now, I’m not in a position to judge which infants are going to have good lives or bad lives. The parents of those children are in the best position to judge, provided they get accurate information on the prospects of their child and the impact the child will have on them and their family as well.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/09/29/1039417879/why-peter-singer-the-drowning-child-ethicist-is-giving-away-his-1-million-prize
You selected three positions that Singer holds that are not radical—this does not make him non-radical. Singer’s views on the moral demandingness of giving and vegetarianism are certainly radical by most standards. Nobody had published these views before The Life You Can Save or Animal Liberation. Whether or not you agree with his views on the killing of severely disabled children, it was also highly radical at the time of publication.
You are ascribing an implicit value-judgment on radicalism, when being a radical is not ceteris paribus a bad thing. I only had two sentences to write this comment, so I couldn’t elaborate, but when I included Singer it was because he’s closely associated with the idea that every dollar spent is a dollar that could be donated, so most spending and ineffectively donating are morally wrong. This is a radical consequentialist view (which I don’t necessarily disagree with btw) that differs greatly from, for example, Giving What We Can’s recommended pledge to give 10% of income.