RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceReader Comments
Peter Singer reflects on a decade at Princeton
Published: Monday, October 26th, 2009
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
I feel bad for the Princeton undergraduate philosophers who have been won over by Singer. He's such a sophist! Just because someone can construct a valid argument, doesn't mean you should accept it. If a conclusion is morally repugnant, it's morally repugnant. Many of Singer's arguments are valid but clearly unsound.
"Singer said that he teaches philosophy with the aim of inspiring students to examine their actions and lives"
Yes, definitely. In all my interactions with him as an undergrad, he's done just that, whether or not you agree with his views. I worked with several charity/service groups at Princeton and he was always supportive. One of the best professors at Princeton.
yay kalila! this is funny to me.
I saw Peter Singer lecture at Williams College last fall. I came prepared to be shocked and angered but was pleasantly surprised to witness a very interesting and mild lecture on animal rights. I completely disagree with Dr. Singer on this issue, but I did note a pragmatism that seemed to recognize the reality of the modern world that we live in. For example, he appeared to acknowledge the legitimacy of controlling overabundant deer herds (like the ones in Princeton) by using professional cullers in a humane manner. In essence, it seems to me he admitted that sometimes animals do need to be killed and in those circumstances there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. He is a more complex person than I originally thought and I appreciated hearing his viewpoints....though much of what he said was wrong.
"Just because someone can construct a valid argument, doesn't mean you should accept it. If a conclusion is morally repugnant, it's morally repugnant."
You went to Princeton???
When faced with a valid argument, we can either deny the premises or accept the conclusion. If the conclusion is so radically odd that we find it much less plausible than the premises, we are fully justified in rejecting those premises.
great article! well-written and informed. go Jason!
"please," don't go around correcting people unless you know what you're talking about. Yes, I did attend Princeton.
If a moral argument is valid, but you feel that its conclusion is "morally repugnant", you should at least consider the possibility that your moral intuitions or predispositions are wrong. In other words, you should examine your own life, attitudes and prejudices, just as a scientist should do, when logic and facts don't mesh with her preconceived notions.
That's right, recent grad. Examine your own life. Make the necessary changes. Not being sarcastic.