[analphilosopher] Keith Burgess-Jackson: Happy Birthday, Peter (a new post at AnalPhilosopher)

[analphilosopher at lists.powerblogs.com]

Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson:
Happy Birthday, Peter
http://www.analphilosopher.com/posts/1120701329.shtml


   Peter Singer=E2=E2the dangerous philosopher=E2=E2is 59 years old today. =
He has
   been writing at a furious pace since at least 1970, when his first
   philosophical publication (on determinism) appeared. I have always had
   a love-hate relationship with Singer. I detest his leftist politics. I
   reject his consequentialism. I even disagree with him about the nature
   of philosophy. Singer thinks the aim of philosophy is to change the
   world. I think the aim of philosophy is to understand the
   world=E2specifically, its logical structure. To the extent that Singer
   advocates change, he is acting not as a philosopher but as what
   Richard A. Posner calls a =E2moral entrepreneur.=E2

   But I love Singer=E2s concern for nonhuman animals. Reading his book
   Animal Liberation (1975) during law school changed my life. It is one
   of the most important books ever written. Singer says he=E2s an animal
   liberationist because he=E2s a utilitarian, but his argument for
   changing our treatment of animals=E2as he admitted to me in
   correspondence=E2doesn=E2t presuppose utilitarianism or any other
   normative ethical theory. All it presupposes is a principle of equal
   consideration of interests. Animals have interests. Disregarding or
   discounting these interests, while giving full weight to the like
   interests of humans, is irrational, a kind of self-contradiction. What
   would you say of someone who accorded full weight to the interests of
   whites, or men, but disregarded or discounted the interests of
   nonwhites, or women? Speciesism has the same logical structure, and
   hence the same moral status, as racism and sexism. That we put animals
   in a separate moral category doesn=E2t make it right, any more than our
   putting blacks or women in a separate moral category makes it right.

   Even when I disagree with Singer, I admire his courage, his honesty,
   his adherence to principle (the principle of utility), and his
   decency. He has been badly treated over the years, and yet he keeps
   working. Six years ago, in correspondence with the late James Rachels,
   I mentioned the controversy surrounding Singer=E2s recent hiring by
   Princeton University. Rachels wrote back: =E2Hi Keith, thanks for
   forwarding the item about Peter. He=E2s catching a lot of flack, which
   is a tribute to his stature=E2no one cares much what the rest of the
   crazy philosophers think! But it=E2s too bad that he is having to endure
   this sort of press, since he=E2s about the most admirable human being I
   know.=E2 I agree. Happy birthday, Peter! May you have many more
   =E2dangerous=E2 years.