Talk:Peter Singer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Removed sentence

I have removed the following sentence from the end of the section titled 'Animal Liberation':

"Acceptable vivisection would be weakly "speciesist" insofar as it passes over human candidates for non-human subjects, but arguably species membership in such cases would be a legitimate tie-breaking consideration."

I think Singer has said that we should generally prefer to use animals over 'marginal' humans for experiments because of the feelings of their families, but this is not speciesist as it has nothing to do with the species to which they belong. As for the claim that species membership would be 'a legitimate tie-breaking consideration' this seems to contradict almost everything Singer has written on the subject in the last thirty years.

part of the Analytical school of philosophy

Would we class Singer as being part of the Analytical School of philosophy, like his mentor R.M.Hare??

Yes. - Atfyfe 08:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Atheism

I think that Singer is an athiest and there should be a section devoted to his religious beliefs. Randomfrenchie 00:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: I dont think its necessary? He has not written extensively on religion or commented upon it. He merely begins his inquiry from a secular position, which is not unusual in modern philosophyUser:AATB

Unless Singer publishes in philosophy of religion, there is no reason to devote anything but a passing reference to his religion. Atheists are not rare beasts worth special study. As AATB mentions, most work done in ethics is from a secular point of view. - Atfyfe 08:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this does not really need commenting on unless he has made it a primary focus of his work.--Gloriamarie 21:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't have much in the way of published work which specifically deconstructs religion, except in passing as mentioned, but he has done a number of talks and debates on the matter. As a lecturer he has been quite a staunch supporter of atheism. Perhaps this is of some note worthy of brief mention? --James O'Callaghan 08:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed section

The section below was part of the article, but was tagged so as to make it invisible. I'm removing it from the article, and placing it here, were it belongs. The user who removed the section also left the following note: "This whole section seems like one person's opinion about what is a detail in Singer's theory, and doesn't seem appropriate here, so I am making it invisible." I'm largely in agreement with the user, though I also think that some of this material is salvageable. Sir Paul 01:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is the only justifiable diet is somewhat moot, especially because the second edition of Practical Ethics endorses Hare's distinction between critical and intuitive levels of moral thinking. A critical thinker might justify solely by reference to Singer's utilitarianism of interests, but at the intuitive level such thought could sanction many habits and social institutions running counter to a straightforward utilitarian reckoning. This is thought that would take into account human weaknesses and a society's circumstances and level of advancement, anticipating unexpected consequences of aiming too single-mindedly at the best consequences; in particular, it might justify non-vegan diets, depending on individual temperament and social circumstance. Singer's Animal Liberation is more about preaching than theorizing, so his commitment to Hare's two-level analysis isn't given much play in that book. But the theoretical implement is in place with the second edition of Practical Ethics, so it would probably be overstatement to hold that veganism for Singer is the only ethically justifiable diet. At least he now has the self-imposed burden of proof to show that Hare-style two-levels thinking would not accommodate non-vegan diets when local conditions or entrenched habits render pursuit of veganism counter-productive. The question about diet becomes even more problematic in the light of scientific evidence confirming the appearance that oysters (etc.) lack the capacity to experience pain. This evidence is untainted by dubious reasoning, drawn from sources as disparate as Descartes and Wittgenstein, that animals without language cannot suffer. (Singer gives such reasoning short shrift.) The scientific evidence draws rather on studies on the neurophysiological basis of pain, a basis which is evidently absent in animals such as oysters. Singer shifts at junctures like this from direct appeals to minimizing suffering to environmental, epistemological, and political arguments, noting for instance the environmental degradation caused by shrimp farming, the advisability of staying on the safe side when we know so little about the physiological bases of pain, and the strategic value of making a clean break with non-vegetarian sources of food.

Animal sex

I remember reading the article mentioned to do with beastiality. As I remember it, he doesn't justify intercourse but just things like a dog using your leg for certain purposes, and he suggests that lots of people allow this in the secrecy of their own homes. I searched the internet, but couldn't find the article. Anyone remember?

Your recollection is not accurate; the final paragraph reads:

At a conference on great apes a few years ago, I spoke to a woman who had visited Camp Leakey, a rehabilitation center for captured orangutans in Borneo run by Birute Galdikas, sometimes referred to as "the Jane Goodall of orangutans" and the world's foremost authority on these great apes. At Camp Leakey, the orangutans are gradually acclimatised to the jungle, and as they get closer to complete independence, they are able to come and go as they please. While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that "they have a very small penis." As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not. That may be because Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings. [bold emphasis added] [1]

I have therefore removed the "" tag. I also supplied a link to the review. Sir Paul 03:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"moral atheist"

Is this how he describes himself? As a "moral atheist"? Or is he simply an atheist who also endorses morality (which philosophers don't?) This may be carping, but this sounds slightly NPOV. A bit like describing someone as a "moral jew". or a "moral caucasion". There is a several hundred year old tradition in analytic philosophy of ethical theorizing that is completely independent of theology. Of course, if he does describe himself as a "moral atheist", then you should ignore me. Otherwise, reword perhaps? 71.154.210.175 12:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard or read that he describes himself as moral atheist. So I assume it's just a biased statement and removed that sentence --Danogo 17:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

But Peter Singer is a moral person and he is an atheist. For example, he donates some of his salary to Oxfam and Unicef. So isn't he moral? Peter Singer cares about the welfare of humanity and the interest of animals, so I am adding it back in. Peter Singer is a man of morals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.139.21.21 (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

It's not for Wikipedia to assert that someone is moral (or immoral). If "moral atheist" is a type of atheist, then that'd be different. Unless we have a source describing the subject as "moral" we shouldn't include it. -Will Beback · † · 19:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does no one create the categories Category:moral person and Category:immoral person? Different people have different definitions of "moral". Therefore, a statement "Person x is a moral person" or "Person x is an immoral person" are not neutral and a violation of WP:NPOV. --Danogo 23:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the description as a moral atheist implies that he is a moral person (vs. a bad, mean, evil, hateful person). It just means that he is a philosopher of ethics (morality) and that the ethics he advocates is not based on a deity - indeed in opposition to religious forms of ethics. I don't know if he himself has described himself as a moral atheist, but I think that that is a rather apt description. David Olivier 00:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the phrase "atheist ethicist" would be less contentious? Rosemary Amey 01:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to: "He specializes in practical ethics, approaching ethical issues from a preference utilitarian and atheistic perspective." I think that captures the idea correctly. It's a bit different from saying he's a moral atheist or an atheist ethicist, in that it doesn't say that P.S. himself is an atheist; what counts most is his works, not what he personnally believes. David Olivier 19:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Contrary to the assertions of numerous religious apologists who believes that one must adopt a belief in God to have a moral foundation, Professor Singer is an example of an atheist who has a strong ethical foundation and acts morally."

I only put that remark down because I do not like it when Christians accuse Professor Singer of being immoral. He acts morally. 134.139.24.65 01:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether Singer acts morally or not is a matter of opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Rosemary Amey 05:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't that rest upon a fact/value dichotomy? I think it is true that Singer acts morally, and don't think that is just my opinion. Unless you want to get into emotivism and think that claiming something is moral or immoral is the same as rooting for one team or booing for another. I have seen Singer speak and know he acts morally for a fact. -Teetotaler Non-theist —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.68.22.207 (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

He is a vegan and donates 20% of his salary to charity - that makes him much more moral than most us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.172.195 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-10T20:47:13 (UTC).

So? This is wikipedia. TOTALLY NPOV. For example, you don't see evil as an adjective in the introductory paragraph to Hitler. Current civilized consensus is that he most definately is, but it is an inherently opinionated term, just as moral is an opinionated term.--64.75.187.195 07:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea that it is strange and needs to be stated that Peter Singer is moral despite being an atheist is offensive and insulting. Why don't we add to every entry on a gay person that they are a "moral gay" and to entries on black persons that they are "moral blacks". I have never found something so POV and so... This absolutely needs to be removed and some wikipedia editors need to conduct self-examination about their personal biases against atheists. - Atfyfe 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Australian socialist

I've commented out the category, since I couldn't find any proof that he's socialist? --Lhademmor 12:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While I have not gotten a chance to read it yet, he wrote Marx: A Very Short Introduction which seems to be a positive examination of Marx. The book probably states if he is a socialist or not. If someone who has read it could shed some light on this, that would be great.

I read hist book on Marx years ago, and as far as I remember it is not very positive towards Marx. Socialism is not a very well defined term either, and includes many people who are not Marxist. But I don't think Peter Singer defines himself as a socialist at all. As a left-wing thinker, certainly (see A Darwinian Left), but very probably not as socialist. David Olivier 10:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So what is he? TMLutas (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

He is a sentient being (aka an animal). If you want to be more general, you can also say he is a piece of matter. If instead you want to be more specific, consider that he is an Australian philosopher, that he is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), University of Melbourne, and that he specializes in practical ethics, approaching ethical issues from a preference utilitarian and atheistic perspective. See the article. David Olivier (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So there's an Australian philosopher ideology or an "Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University" ideology, or a laureate professor ideology? Way to not answer the question. If Singer's got a political philosophy, it's relevant to his wikipedia page. What are the ethics and utilitarianism of the great economics questions of our times according to Singer? Frankly, if he's a utilitarian marxist at this point in the history of the world, it would be quite an eye opener. TMLutas (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why you insist on implying that he may be a Marxist. I think it's rather clear that he isn't. He's broadly on the left, he strongly supports democracy, and a much more equal distribution of wealth among humans. Apart from that, I think that you have to read and understand the article and his works if you want to know more. Your “So what is he?” question seems to imply that we should find some way to describe his ideas with one or two words. I don't think that's the way things are, for him of for anyone, actually. David Olivier (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit much to say that I "insist" on anything with regard to Singer's politics. My first intervention was to simply ask what is he (implying only the subject, Singer's political economy theory). When this was grossly misconstrued in a silly way, I decided to let my inner Dadaist out for a bit of fun. But seriously, we've just gone through a century where the biggest cause of violent death has been over questions of political economy (naziism and communism are both political and economic systems). Where does Singer fit in that struggle, especially since the communist embers haven't entirely gone out and thanks to the PRC, economic fascism seems to be making a comeback? Why the reticence? TMLutas (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It didn't look obvious at all that you were asking about his ideas on political economy. You just asked what he is, and to such a broad question I think that there is no meaningful answer. Now it's your opinion that issues of political economy have been the greatest cause of violent death in the 20th century. I would rather see the human consumption of animal flesh in that role, since at least 60 thousand million ground animals, and uncounted fish, are killed each year for their bodies. Now concerning Singer's positions: I think I have said all that I can on the issue. Perhaps the article is lacking a bit on the subject of PS's positions on world economy and so on; if you can contribute, you're welcome. But if you are just somehow worried by the issue that he might be a commie, I think I can reassure you, he's not. David Olivier (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Bringing up McCarthyism via link is just insulting. Cut it out. One's position on the major issues of the 20th century is certainly fodder for legitimate inquiry and explanation in an NPOV encyclopedia article. I'm not worried whether Peter Singer is lending his voice to one of the bloodiest movements of the 20th century. I do think that it would be a relevant thing to note if it were true.

He may or may not be a communist. I can't seem to get anybody to actually say. I think asking the question "so what is he" in a section titled "Australian socialist" and right after a denial that he is a socialist is obvious enough though, apparently, not for you. TMLutas (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, if you still haven't understood that he is not to be classified as a communist, please read what was said above one, two or three times if necessary. Now someone who, in the absence of any reason to believe a person is a communist, comes back again and again to insist that he may well be one and that there is something fishy and adds repeatedly how horrible communism is, does remind of some of the obsessions of the past century. David Olivier (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, he's not a communist, fine. What is he? "A man of the left" is about the vaguest thing out there but that bit of fluff is all that seems to be a consensus on. Are his opinions some great secret? TMLutas (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, considering that Catholicism is arguably the bloodiest ideology that there ever has been in all of human history, you could also be obsessed in knowing if Peter Singer might be a Catholic. I think I can reassure you that he is not that either. David Olivier (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You can argue it if you're a fool. I'm not particularly interested in arguing the body count of Catholicism v Islam or Atheism here as it's out of bounds but I would certainly think it relevant to the article if Singer claimed any sort of association with Catholicism because he's obviously got problems with the whole "Gospel of life" issue. Similarly, his ethical stands should be woven into the larger continuum of human philosophy so, yes, it's relevant. TMLutas (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather you didn't intersperse your answers between bits of mine, it makes it difficult to follow.

For you to suggest that the opinions of Peter Singer — who has written tens of books and scores of articles and been interviewed countless times — may be secret is strange. The only explanation I can find for your unsatisfaction with my answers is that your frames of reference have difficulty accomodating the variety of opinions that there are in the world.

Re Catholicism: thanks for calling me a fool. I'm certainly not the only one; see for instance William Nicholls, Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate, about Christian antisemitism having paved the way to the Holocaust; note that the author is a Christian himself, albeit a thoughtful one. One can also note the role of the Catholic Church in the Rwandan Genocide; see here, for instance. Not to speak of the Christian attitude towards non-human animals; see the works of another thoughtful Christian, Andrew Linzey. I could also have picked on capitalism, since your user page proclaims that you are a capitalist, and remark that the number of human deaths (not to speak of non-human animals) that can arguably be attributed to that ideology is immense... But please don't take all this as personal attacks; I personally do not judge people or ideas so summarily as you seem to do.

Now actually I don't understand what you say there about an association between Singer and Catholicism, or problems with the the “Gospel of life” (?). I don't see what you would want the article to say about that.

David Olivier (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Singer is a self-described social democrat, having stated, "I'm a social democrat, utterly opposed to racist policies and a totalitarian state" when questioned about allegations of his Nazism by interviewer Nell Boyce, an excerpt of which was included in his Writings on an Ethical Life. Agnapostate (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Amusing photo

I've always thought that those "link boxes", a large box of links to other pages in a given topic (where the same box appears on all those pages) was not a good idea. But on this page, the result is almost comical :-) If you browse through this page looking for Peter Singer's photo, the only photo you'll find is that of a monkey! Amusing. Nyh 06:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Recent appearance"

The article currently says (in the "Other Views" section) "On his recent appearance on The Colbert Report [...]" - it'd be a good idea to remove the word "recent" and put in the actual date when he appeared on that show. "recent" is a meaningless word in an encyclopaedia entry, since we have no idea when it might actually be read. :) -- Schneelocke 12:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo?

No one has any photograph available of him? It would improve the article a lot.--Gloriamarie 21:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

'Criticism' section

There is a section of references called 'criticism' at the end. I suggest it would be better to replace this with a section called 'further reading'. This would be better because (i) it would be more neutral, and (ii) it would allow other relevant readings to be included. The most obvious of these further readings would be Dale Jamieson (ed.) Peter Singer and His Critics. As made clear in the article as a whole, there are plenty of writings that have been heavily influenced by Singer, which while not being uncrtical, acknowledge their debt to his thought. Any objections to changes? Abchrvis 19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely object! Changing the heading from "Criticism" is NOT neutral. Criticisms are criticisms. They should be called what they are. More to that, why is there an attempt in every example of criticism to show how the critics themselves were at least partially in error? This smacks of bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.47.34 (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Where has the "4.1 Critics" section gone?? [by MarcoPolo, 15:15, 27 March 2009] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.162.132.165 (talk)

Biographies of Living Persons

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia. ... The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

From WP:BLP: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States and to our content policies:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability
• No original research

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia.[2]

An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

Mdbrownmsw 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

To me, your edits look just like random deletions. Your first deletion is of the phrase:

He is a founding member of the Great Ape Project, which seeks to persuade the United Nations to adopt a Declaration on Great Apes awarding personhood to non-human great apes.

Frankly, that is not contentious.

The guidelines you cite apply to contentions material. Do you really want every single sentence to be sourced??

The next passage you deleted is:

So, for example an animal does not have the right to a good education as this is meaningless to him, just as a male human does not have the right to an abortion.

That is just what he says in the first chapter of Animal Liberation. Either you know nothing of Peter Singer, or there is something I'm missing.

David Olivier 17:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not about me, what I know or what I want. This is about following an important policy.

The GAP, their Declaration and the wikipedia articles on them do NOT use the word "personhood" or anything similar. In fact, GRASP, on their homepage at www.personhood.org actually go after Singer for not wanting enough for apes.

I don't have the time or the desire to track down all of the cites needed. You said it isn't contentious. The article materially misstated what GAP seeks and said Singer founded it (making their goal his goal). Here's a start, handling both of those issues as well as demonstrating that it was "contentious"[2]:

"I founded the Great Ape Project together with Paola Cavalieri, an Italian philosopher and animal advocate, in 1993. Our aim was to grant some basic rights to the nonhuman great apes: life, liberty and the prohibition of torture. The project has proven controversial."[3]

If there is a contentious statement that is just what Singer says, cite it. Heck, quote it.

Mdbrownmsw 19:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know what axe you're trying to grind. It beats me. I'm not going to spend my night on it. Wreak havock on the article, OK, it will be rebuilt in the end just the same. David Olivier 22:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think I do know what axe you're trying to grind. Never mind. The fact is that there seems to be no controversy on the site you mention (personhood.org) against the GAP. They don't seem to believe that the GAP doesn't ask for personhood for the apes. (If I missed it, please quote the relevant page.) The notion of personhood is one that Peter Singer does endorse, see Practical Ethics, in which he suggests that pigs may well qualify. That would seem to imply that there is little doubt concerning the apes (i.e. concerning his attribution of personhood to them). The GAP book explicitely calls for rights being recognized, and for the apes to be included in the "community of equals". So saying that it called for recognizing the personhood of the apes is hardly contentious, whether or not it is not strictly what Peter Singer said.

Perhaps you are correct in saying that the wording could be more strictly in accordance with that of the GAP itself, but that could just be a constructive remark. Going through the text and cutting out large sections just because the wording is not quite perfect is, instead, simply destructive.

David Olivier 22:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"seems to be no controversy on the site you mention (personhood.org)"

At www.personhood.org, on the homepage, see:

"but certainly not by GRASP. The reality is that the CHIMP Act was one of the worst moments in the history of U.S. animal-advocacy groups. ... Peter Singer also condoned the CHIMP Act. As just about every visitor to this site will already know, Singer is the international president of the Great Ape Project (GAP), which seeks various international bans on using apes. Apparently, GAP is torn. Do they or do they not seriously want rights for apes?"

"personhood is one that Peter Singer does endorse, see Practical Ethics, in which he suggests that pigs may well qualify. That would seem to imply that there is little doubt concerning the apes"

What he said about pigs does not verify the removed article's text attaching that to apes. That, to you, this leaves "little doubt" is moot. It is not verifiable.

"explicitely calls for rights being recognized, and for the apes to be included in the "community of equals". So ... the personhood of the apes is hardly contentious, whether or not it is not strictly what Peter Singer said."

The article's interpretation of his words is dubious and unverifiable. Singer, his book, the organization he co-founded and their resolution do NOT call for "personhood". Rather, they all create a NEW category with a set of rights which the article called "personhood". This is dubious and unverifiable.

"Perhaps ... the wording could be more strictly in accordance ... (but) cutting out large sections just because the wording is not quite perfect is, instead, simply destructive."

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia.[2] WP:BLP

Mdbrownmsw 18:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you a sentient being or a bot? If the latter, I will give up arguing with you. Well actually, in the former case I probably will too. David Olivier 19:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to assume I am not undestanding what you are saying.

Mdbrownmsw 20:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Abortion, etc.

The abortion/infanticide position seems incomplete; I'm editing it to clarify his positions on these issues. The relevant citations are from Practical Ethics, so I'm going to get my copy so I can get the direct citation info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlcorner (talk • contribs) 17:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP we will need the cite to keep that clarification in place. Mdbrownmsw 19:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The infanticide part seems like it was written by someone who is obviously against Singer, as following the link shows. [4]

I will delete that part, because it isn't said what "disabled" means. Does it mean that one of the baby's feet is misshapen, or a baby cannot live without 24-hour life-support systems. The infanticide part seems to say nothing, and I will delete it. When there is a direct quote from Peter Singer on the subject, clear enough to understand what he means by his words, then I would be in favor of the infanticide part returning. --Riction (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The the part about singer supporting Voluntary, Involuntary, and Non Voluntary euthanasia, is a little complicated, and could use a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.99.111 (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As discussed in cite #23, Singer does not distinguish between the personhood of a fetus and an infant, and species is irrelevant. Therefore there is no great leap of logic to equate infanticide and abortion based on his own writings.Biccat (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Logically deducing Singer's views would be considered original research, which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Please provide explicit, not implicit, citations for Singer's views. --Padraic 20:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The citation provided in #23 provides sufficient evidence for this. As I explained, there is no great leap of logic required. In the words of Mr. Singer himself: "a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings." Without any mention of his views on infanticide, there's no reason to include the term in the heading. But eliminating the fact that he is at best an apologist for infanticide is clearly a far cry from NPOV. You wrongly reverted an edit without considering the evidence supporting it.Biccat (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Perceived evidence of a viewpoint is not the same as a reliable source stating that it is his position. All you need to do is to state facts and let readers draw conclusions, not draw the conclusions first. We need to not reflect our own like/dislike of a subject in the article nor our feeling about positions we think they take. Bear in mind that the quoted text is just a small part of a long essay on ethics discussing the ethics of many types of killing; itself just an excerpt of a work 15 years in his past.Peripitus (Talk) 09:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So the author's own statements about a topic are not a reliable source regarding his opinion on the matter? I did not include the quoted material in the article because copyright may not be within Wikipedia's guidelines. See the quoted material above. The article already mentions that, in terms of Euthanasia, "Species membership is morally irrelevant, but personhood is relevant." The article already attributes this position to abortion (based on a 15 year old reference), so I am unclear as to why it is inappropriate to include this same position (in the same work) as it applies to infanticide. The author himself morally equates abortion and infanticide. I don't see what the problem is in including this fact in the article.Biccat (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have an explicit quote from Singer defending infanticide, please post it. Particularly in the area of ethics, it is quite POV (and as I mentioned, original research) to attribute a view to someone based on external deductions of their premises. If you have a quote from a reliable source who interprets Singer as defending infanticide, that may also work. Otherwise, you said yourself this quote is already mentioned in the euthanasia section... --Padraic 13:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. From http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm (cited in the article under fn #23). This is cited under the heading of Euthanasia, but only with respect to his position on abortion. Any comments on infanticide are missing, despite the fact that this is one of his most controversial points.

• Further, he has been quoted as saying Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) Yet this quote was also removed from the article, under the pretense that the line Singer classifies euthanasia as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is that with the consent of the subject serves to represent his views on the topic. However, classifying euthanasia depending on the consent (or ability to consent) of the subject is substantially different than stating that there is nothing morally wrong with killing an infant.
• I am not treading on any new ground by attributing this position to him. Other sources of his work have been cited as representing his views Singer holds that the right to life is grounded in a being's personhood. To avoid the trap of trying to define the ethics of the ethicist (original work), I am citing to Singer's own work as concrete evidence of the position he has espoused (if not necessarily taken).
• I do not want to post the explicit quote in the Wikipedia article for several reasons. First, there is no wiki requirement that the sourced material must be explicitly quoted. The whole wiki project characterizes works without quotation (but sources them). Second, I am unsure as to whether the referenced website conforms to Wiki's copyright rules. I don't want to get involved in a copyright spat, so I tried to paraphrase his work in the article.
• Finally, (as I discussed above) whatever his position on Infanticide, the article includes the heading "Abortion, euthanasia and infanticide" yet only substantively discusses his position on abortion. The rest is a teaser of his work, more promotional than informative. There is no discussion of his view on euthanasia or infanticide (as expressed in his works), making the heading deceptive at best. But taking away the topics of Euthanasia and Infanticide (as should be done if they are not discussed), ignores relevant portions of the controversy and reputation of Singer.Biccat (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV? - Abortion, Euthanasia, Infanticide

The bolded sentence in the following should perhaps be deleted:

His argument against this is to say that, while a fetus is admittedly a member of the human species, it is not a person, which is defined as a self conscious being that sees itself over time. Species membership is morally irrelevant, but personhood is relevant.[23]

During a debate, Singer is quoted as saying "I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being," and "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person."[24]

Singer classifies euthanasia as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is that with the consent of the subject.

The above quote serves only to sway opinion.

Thoughts? (Snookerfran (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

True, it doesn't add much, apart from phrasing things in an inflammatory way, and seems a bit out of place between the two other sentences. I'm rather for deletion. David Olivier (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removing it. It's been lifted out of context. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure that the quotes are lifted out of context, necessarily, but they're awkwardly placed and really don't add anything. Djk3 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I added the quotes. I see no reason to remove them. But remove them if you must. Ostap 16:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed them for now per majority view. - Snookerfran (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm late, but, if you remove them, there is no reference to infanticide in the very section about Peter Singer's views on "abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide." Since such views are the very reason Singer is best-known in many quarters, it seems to me that those quotes--or something very, very similar--ought to be included. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Even later to this, sorry. The section seems to have been dealt with well in the meantime and seems fine now with the quotes back. It was the context rather than the content that originally veered away from WP:NPOV - Snookerfran (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Photos

I've added some new photos, please feel free to rearrange then as you wish. I didn't use the other head and shoulders photo I took, but if people here think that's a better option please go ahead and use it. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Very nice! I like them, but I think that you should use one or the other of the podium shots, and not both. They're almost the same. How was the talk, anyway? Djk3 (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretty good, he talked about personhood in relation to euthanasia and medical decisions about giving life-saving treatments. It was aimed at the medical students in the audience, so was focussed mainly on practical examples rather than more abstract philosophy. Seems a very nice guy as well and he was happy to pose for a few photos when I said they were for Wikipedia. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Purported similarities with Hoche

A few days ago, this edit, by user 203.220.105.195, added Alfred Hoche in the “see also” list, implying that there is a similarity between Peter Singer's ideas and those of Alfred Hoche, a doctor involved in the Nazi “euthanasia” programs. I reversed that edit.

Now on the Alfred Hoche page itself, the same purported similarity was spelled out:

4 Hoche's relevance today

Advocates of euthanasia have been accused of being influenced by Hoche, whether knowingly or not.

In particular, several authors[1][2][3][4][5] have pointed out similarities between the arguments of Hoche and those of Australian philosopher Peter Singer[6].

As I explained on the Alfred Hoche talk page, it appears to me that the fact that some authors claim to see similarities between Hoche and Singer may be relevant, but to the article on Singer, not to the article on Hoche. The authors who make such comparisons are interested in attacking Singer, not in making historical notes about Hoche and his «legacy». Putting such comparisons on the article on Hoche only amounts to sneaking in the slur against Singer behind the backs of people who are competent regarding Peter Singer.

User 203.220.105.195 has softened somewhat the wording of the paragraph cited above, but the problem remains. The references cited are largely just the plain old Singer-bashing, largely inspired by religious, anti-Darwinian and anti-utilitarian sentiment; and are hardly about Hoche at all. The problem is that while it is possible for competent people to maintain a relatively NPOV Peter Singer page, there is currently nothing to keep incompetent and violently anti-Singer editors from going around Wikipedia peppering articles on various repulsive figures with references to their “similarities” with Peter Singer.

I am not necessarily against mentioning that some authors draw comparisons between Singer and Hoche or Hitler or Stalin or the Balrog, but that should be done on the Peter Singer page, and in an articulate and NPOV way.

David Olivier (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Who has the final say

The whole of the criticism sections seem to follow the format of '1. General kind of criticism or particular critical statement', '2. Why that criticism is wrong'. The entirety of it seems to give the last word to Singer, and reads almost as though he himself had edited it to defend his positions. This seems in opposition to Wikipedia's intended neutral point of view, as to allow Singer's word to be last is to provide tacit support for his position. There is a whole section devoted to 'Misunderstanding, hate-speech and agitation against Singer' as though the author wished we should pity him. Other criticism on Wikipedia pages (such as that on the Ford Pinto page) include very little (or no) defense of the subject. 64.126.179.98 (talk)

Actually there is a defense from Ford on the Ford Pinto page, which would mean, as you put it, that Ford has the last word.

In any case the section titled “criticism” is currently short and weak, and there is actually more information about the opposition to Singer's ideas in the other sections. In these he doesn't always “have the last word”, like in the end of the following section, “Misunderstanding, hate-speech...”, which ends with the charge of hypocrisy brought against him, without any specific response.

I think the “criticism” section itself should simply be deleted, because the two arguments it mentions against Singer are very weak. The first one holds that only those who understand rights and duties can have rights. But the response that is mentioned — that babies, etc. don't understand rights and duties but nonetheless have rights, is already given in Singer's first book on the subject, Animal Liberation. That the authors can go on and on with an argument that has already been answered, without taking into consideration that answer, discredits their argument and imho means it shouldn't even be mentioned. The second argument — that individuals are to be judged following not what they are but what typical members of their group are — seems even less serious to me.

The article as a whole does not hide the fact that Singer is a controversial thinker. I'm not sure much more is needed. It's just not the case that in every article about a controversial set of ideas there is a criticism section. For instance, where is the criticism in the Christianity article?

David Olivier (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The "defense from Ford on the Ford Pinto page" comes not from Ford, but from a UCLA professor. It makes up one paragraph of four (five, if you count the single sentence following it, mentioning the Pinto's inclusion in Time's 50 Worst Cars article). Contrast with the near point-by-point rebuttal featured on Singer's page. The section does end with a criticism, but this is not the conclusion of an overarching concept, simply another singular critical point. A point rather mitigated by the fact that it accuses him of the heinous crime of helping his mother.

You note that Singer is a controversial thinker, and his page reflects that. But to someone who is unfamiliar with Singer (such as myself), the article as a whole does not seem to support that he is a controversial thinker because of his beliefs, but rather because of others' incompetence. This is, as I have previously noted, tacit support of his viewpoints, and thus biased. And while there may be no criticism section in the article on Christianity, I would submit that there is some difference between a college professor who has been in controversy for a few decades, and a major world religion with 2 billion followers that has been around for a couple thousand years.

I would also note that, regardless of your beliefs on wikipedia's NPOV policy (as espoused on your own user page), that policy is still the rule of law on this site, and the article should be formatted to wikipedia's standards, not your own.

64.126.179.98 (talk)

Part of what you are discussing seems to have been some things that I may have contributed. I attempted to do it within wikipedia rules as well as I could. It was sourced information, Singer himself didn't edit it that I know of but he was part of the source. I also saw other incidents where he was misrepresented but didn't cite them because I didn't track the source. Misrepresenting people that express controversial issues is a common and serious problem. I don't think this should be deleted. However many people including yourself don't seem to be familiar with Singer or other people. My advise is read the person in question and find out for yourself whether he is being misrepresented. Don't rely on people that appear to be inspiring emotion for the last word. If you have sourced criticism that criticises positions that Singer actually has I wouldn't object if you added it. However if it involves criticism of a distorted version of Singers positions I think that should be corrected.

Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Animal "Rights"

No offense to anyone who has worked on this article, but the notion that Peter Singer supports Animal Rights is absurd (He argues that animals should have rights based on their ability to feel pain more than their intelligence.), mainly because Singer himself claims that "right" is an ambiguous concept. Beyond that, it is moot as it has no bearing on his argument concerning utility and happiness. It is not that animals have the right to be happy and not tortured or made to suffer(specifically as an animal that is killed painlessly is not an unhappy one)but that, if utility is the primary motivation in structuring ethical behavior, it is undesirable. I'm afraid I've never done this before and have none of my literature with me at the moment for references, but I assure you if anyone has his texts and, more importantly, his attempts to clarify what he meant through the media, it is obvious. 130.74.254.247 (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Uncited premise: fetuses lack capacity for suffering or satisfaction

From Peter Singer#Abortion, euthanasia and infanticide:

Since a capacity to experience suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus (up to around 18 weeks) has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for fetuses to hold any preferences at all.

Is this sentence intended as a statement of fact or a paraphrasing of Singer's opinion? If it is merely Singer's opinion, it should say "Singer argues that" or "in Singer's view," somewhere in it. If it's a statement of fact, the premise that "a fetus (up to around 18 weeks) has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction" needs a citation. I understand the difficulty of proving a lack of sensation, but that premise is contentious enough that it needs a citation of some sort. Failing that, it should be reworded to something less contentious, like the following (changed portion emphasized):

Since a capacity to experience suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and in Singer's view a fetus (up to around 18 weeks) has no capacity to suffer or feel, it is not possible for fetuses to hold any preferences at all.

-kotra (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The 18 week limit is an assertion by Singer. Perhaps in Practical Ethics, I'd have to check. Anyway, I'm practically sure he cites that limit somewhere, arguing that the nervous system is not mature enough before 18 weeks. I've modified the article following your suggestion, and deleted the fact tag.

The wording of the paragraph remains a bit awkward, because the argument given actually applies only before that 18 week limit. When the fetus becomes sentient — if it actually does before birth — it starts to have interests. Singer still argues for giving priority to the choice of the mother (or parents), but on different, preference-utilitarian, grounds. Perhaps that should be made clearer.

David Olivier (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that fixes the issue. If I understand you correctly, Singer says that while the capacity for suffering and satisfaction appears after 18 weeks, actual preferences don't occur until later? And that only when preferences form does the side of the fetus/infant need to be taken into consideration? If so, that sounds like it would be good to explain. -kotra (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Vegan" category

I know this has been debated at length before, but since Singer calls himself a vegetarian and not a vegan, as stated in the article, does he not belong in the "Australian vegetarians" category instead of the "Australian vegans" one? --n-k, 01:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me that in that quote he doesn't call himself a vegan. I don't think the interpretation that is given in the article — that he doesn't call himself a vegan — is unjustified.

The issue of whether he should be in the WP “vegan” category or not is slightly different. It is up to Wikipedians to decide how stringent we are in our definition of the term, regardless of how individuals define themselves. I think we should not be excessively purist about it and should leave Singer in.

David Olivier (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I consider veganism and non-veganism almost as distinct as black and white. If someone intentionally eats meat, dairy, or eggs on any occasion, they are not a vegan. --n-k, 11:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This could be the policy, but presumably means that anyone who has ever knowingly consumed a molecule of animal-derived food cannot be identified as vegan. (I guess that would include anyone who was breast-fed as a baby, too.) To me, this seems unreasonable. Mkcmkc (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You are totally mistaken about breat-feeding. Vegans abstain from non-human animal food, not from willingly given food from a human mother. Vegans believe that cow milk is for baby cows and that human milk is for baby humans. In regards to your assessment concerning "a molecule of animal-derived food," you're right, that is unreasonable. However, when someone eats meat, dairy, or eggs, they are definitely not a vegan, and it is reasonable to say so. --n-k, 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Singer's quote says "I am largely vegan but I'm a flexible vegan. I don't go to the supermarket and buy non-vegan stuff for myself. But when I'm traveling or going to other people's places I will be quite happy to eat vegetarian rather than vegan." This seems to mean he does consider himself a vegan, just one that's willing to temporarily be merely vegetarian when it's socially appropriate. I agree with David Olivier in that it's impossible to make what is "vegan" black and white, since animal products in some form are in (or are used to make) nearly everything. Pharmaceuticals (see Pharmaceutical glaze, Vitamin D3, gelatin, etc), candies (Pharmaceutical glaze, sugar [using bone char], cochineal), baked goods (whey, egg whites); even the most innocuous of vegetables involve unintentionally killing some insects when harvesting. Strictly speaking, it's impossible to be 100% vegan unless you're 100% dead. With that in mind, if Singer calls himself a vegan, and he seeks to exclude the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose, then we should call him a vegan too. Judging from his quote above, that seems to be the case. (Full disclosure: I'm mostly vegan, but the "mostly" is for different reasons than Singer [I have no problem with honey]) -kotra (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have modified the article, replacing "Singer calls himself... not a vegan" by "...calls himself... a flexible vegan". The statement by Singer does not justify that he calls himself "not a vegan"; and we should not make it appear to say more than it does.

Re the black-and-white debate: I agree with Kotra that strictly speaking, by n-k's definition, no one can be vegan. I know that by eating salad I will sooner or later eat a gnat; if, knowing that, I choose to eat salad, I will have eaten the gnat intentionally. That doesn't mean that there can be no difference between a person who eats salad and someone who gorges emself with foie gras every morning; but it does mean that there is no perfectly clear dividing line.

To be a vegan involves different aspects. Singer is essentially a vegan in what he eats and consumes, and he advocates veganism. That kind of person is more or less what I expect to find in a list of vegans. That is why I think he should remain in the WP "vegans" category.

David Olivier (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm vegan. Peter Singer is vegan. At least enough for the category. If you want to discuss his specific quote in his article, go for it. Kellen^T 15:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Animal versus Human fetus/baby/disabled "sentience"

Merely pointing out inconsistencies here. If Peter Singer views personhood as being limited to 'sentient' beings and therefore considers some disabled people and all infants to lack the status, obviously the vast majority of animals, if not all, lack sentience (as he defines it) too and thus there is no moral dilemma whether their corpses are recycled into the earth via human intestines, wolf intestines, or bacterial metabolism. Why is Peter Singer a vegan?

A human baby avoids situations that it knows has caused it pain, just as animals do. A nervous system is capable of suffering (pain/discomfort/stress signals), whether it exists in an animal or a human fetus/baby/adult. His ethics on developmental forms of human life directly comes in conflict with his support of animal life. Does he support the concept of eating animals that are either in the fetal or infant stage of development or are disabled beyond "sentience"? Why is Peter Singer so hypocritical? Does he address these hypocritical features? If so, it should be included in the article because otherwise I can see how many readers may assume (whether rightly or wrongly) that Peter Singer is a hypocrite.

Forgive my personal bias, I am a carnivorous, nihilist, agnostic, rationalist libertarian that thinks everything is just matter interacting and reacting since the Big Bang (or whatever actually happened) and feels that all this moralist rationalizing by individuals such as Peter Singer is completely inane. On another note, what is the purpose of arguing that species are equal, there is no "good", "evil", "equality" except what our brains construct, so what's the big problem with Homo Sapiens utilizing other species?

I support total human freedom, rights, and equality, because these standards create a society that maximizes utility and creates more utility for my self-interest, and that of everyone else, than other ineffective systems (Socialism, Fascism, Feudalism, Slavery, Monarchy). Animals fall outside of this equation as nonproductive beings of lesser sentience, and our treatment of them should remain in the realm of human emotion and utility, animals do not warrant constructed philosophical "laws". Ethics should maximize societal utility, thus I support embryonic stem cell research, abortion rights (although this is a case-by-case situation because it is never certain whether an individual maintaining independence via an abortion will create more utility for society than the potential individual that may have been born otherwise), animal research, and animal eating. However, if you gain emotional utility from animals that is totally fine and you can pursue that with your resources, but you shouldn't construct philosophical rationalizations and regulations limiting others right to do as they wish. Call me an evil capitalist if you wish.--Exander (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Peter Singer is a hypocrit and all ethical reasoning is inane bs; and you support whatever forwards your own interests. OK, but before coming in and shoving your contemptuous POV into our faces, you could at least try to get a basic grasp on the subject. Which you obviously have not done. Peter Singer doesn't hold that personhood = sentience. He doesn't hold either that disabled people or infants are non-sentient. All that you say on the issue only illustrates your incompetence to talk about it. David Olivier (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Zoophilia

In the discussion of zoophilia, it is stated that "More recently, there has been a public outcry from the Australian people, denouncing Peter Singer as an Australian and claiming that he's just "A sick motherfucker."" I am personally unaware of any recent backlash against Singer in Australia, and do not believe that there has been any increased "outcry" against his views. Additionally, the claim that he's "a sick motherfucker" needs some sort of citation. Helsta (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is semi routine for Peter Singer due to the controversial and emotional nature of his views. I just revert and go on when I see this but it might be worth while to point people elsewhere so they can vent on a location that is designed for discussion. Perhaps a message board or the ask wikipedia section. This would be a virtual invitation for uncivil comments from some people though but it would be better to have them there than in a encyclopedia. good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Singer

This was just removed "In Germany, his positions have been compared to Nazism and his lectures have been repeatedly disrupted." This is true. This subject was addressed in Singers own book and it shouldn't be ignored. Singer has often been taken out of context and it should be put in the right perspective but not ignored. If it is not put in proper perspective Singer will continue to be misrepresented. Singer addresses emotional issues which anger many people and unfortunately when this happens things are often taken out of context and some effort should be made to repair that. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Z stuff again

There was an anonymous edit today to the paragraph on Singer's positions on zoophilia, and I reversed it, because it was attributing to Singer positions that are not what Singer actually said. I have now reread the article and confirm that Singer does not say that "zoophilia is not unethical so long as it involves no harm or cruelty to the animal", for instance. He says that it is unethical if it does involve cruelty, but he does not say the converse. Now User:Adlerschloß has made another, similar, series of edits, asserting that they are properly sourced. For instance:

Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty" and that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals

Singer indeed does say, seperately, those three things, but the construction of this sentence makes it appear that he believes that some sex with animals should not remain illegal. He simply does not say that, and we should make it appear that he does.

I have not reverted, to avoid edit-warring and also because actually the original state of the paragraph is a kind of mess too, stating, for instance, that Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural. No, he does not say that either. The "normal or natural" stuff is in the last sentence of his article: "This [incident] does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean". If anything, he seems to be dismissing here the very concept of "normal or natural". He is certainly not asserting that such sex is abnormal or unnatural.

The whole paragraph should be reviewed to delete all such interpretations of Singer's article, keeping to what he actually does say.

I don't think either that the article should go at length into what Ingrid Newkirk, or the pope or George Bush or whoever, said about the issue. This is an article on Singer, not a collection of opinions on zoophilia.

David Olivier (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As a minimum, I agree that the paragraph on Newkirk is irrelevant entirely, it is so obvious that his position is not the standard view, that it's not really necessary to discuss it in detail, either As for Regan, at least the part about sex with children is irrelevant to the issue. DGG (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

disam

given the simultaneous work-- in almost the same field -- of Peter A. Singer, of almost equal distinction, the name of this should have both middle initials, Peter A. S. Singer.. I agree A.D. is the more famous but this as listed is thoroughly confusing. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Spammish links to this article

I have the impression that several links to this article are spammish, i.e. they exist only to give additional notoriety to Singer. It's inappropriate to quote Singer as if he were the only one to have ever advocated the ideas he's advocated, because he probably isn't, given that support for animal rights and euthanasia within the framework of antispecism is fairly common among modern intellectuals. Not mentioning these other intellectuals probably amounts to creating a needless personality cult around Singer. ADM (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation

I just restored some information about the misrepresentation of Peter Singer that was expressed by the source cited. This is a very big problem with some controversial figures including Singer. His opponents have a long history of misrepresenting him then critisizing the distortion. This need to be pointed out if people are going to understand his true views. this is bacvked up by the source in a factual manner. If anyone has infomation to the contrary it will be welcome but this has been on the article for months for people to checkl the source and it is only a small sample of the misrepresentation of Peter Singer. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Context of the criticism/boycott in Germany

First off, as far as Germany goes, the section "Criticism of Singer" draws exclusively from the essay "On being silenced in Germany" (Singer, New York Review of Books of 15 Aug 1991). This is fine, as it shows quite an accurate picture of the toils and turmoils Singer's views and theses caused in these days.

It does, however, fail to provide the historical context, which is necessary to understand the ferocity and aggressiveness of the protests against Singer on the one hand and the cowardice exhibited by the university professors on the other hand. Since around 1970, German governments had struggeled to reform the laws on abortion.

The first true effort to liberalize the laws on abortion had been balked by the Federal Constitutional Court in 1975, I think, which held the the state's duty to protect life to be violated by a law that allowed a pregnancy to be terminated on the grounds of its duration. In order to remedy this situation, the government passed a bill that presented a rather differentiated approach, including certain elements that allowed an abortion on the grounds of an embryopathic indication.

As it has to expected with today's mindset, this did not sit too well with disabled people. It also caused a large part of the German parliament and the Bavarian government to call upon the Federal Constitutional Court for a second time. Again, the Court gave the bill the boot, this time issuing very intricate guidelines for a future bill. How this bill turned out is of no relevance here.

Why is all of this necessary? Well, because the political and civil debate concerning the embryopathic indication of an abortion was still at beaufort 12 when Peter Singer entered the scene in the manner he and this article describe. The Federal Constitutional Court was going to decide in 1993, I think, wherefore the law, which was somewhat open to grave misunderstandings and ugly interpretations was still in force.

Apart from the ethical problems arising from the issue of abortion in general, disabled people felt that their lives were being rated as not worth living. This was caused by the fact that the law specifically allowed abortion when and if an embryo exhibited certain indications of future disability.

I hope that it can be gleaned from the aforesaid that, although no shining examples of conduct in any debate, especially not an academic one, the extent of the reactions that Singer's views, as well founded and intellectually and emphatically sound they may be, can be attributed to the political climate of these days. Well, at least in part they can be.

I would do the editing myself, but a) I have never edited an article and with all those new guidelines am sure that I am not allowed to do so and b) simply do not have the time to do this properly at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.71.68.162 (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Zoophilia

I have just reverted an edit deleted the Singer quote from the Colbert Report. I feel it adds important context and should be left in the article.Intermittentgardener (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

GM Food

Is there anywhere that Peter Singer talks about Genetically modified food? Should we include it? Thanks- 99.197.224.57 (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

The "Criticism" section does not appear to present any legitimate criticisms of Peter Singer. Most of the critics mentioned are made to look foolish, e.g. "protesters indicated that they believed he was opposed to all rights for the disabled [and they were incorrect]" or describing a "brutal attack." Perhaps there was indeed a brutal attack, but it seems to me that a protest or an attack is not a criticism.

95.88.136.10 (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The difference in style is quite obvious. I compared two parts of the text (A: the protest in Zurich and B: the bestiality part) through a text analyser:

Readability: (20-hard 60-optimal) A: 47 B: 15

Gunning-Fog Index (6-easy 20-hard) A: 9.2 B: 15.3

If it wasn't for Singer, I wouldn't have known those apps exist online ;-) But yes, the whole thing is written in a patronizing condescending way. If these are slightly reworked quotes of him, it would be better to have the exact first-person phrases. And you're right that the section doesn't present criticisms, it only lists protests. There is Not A Modest Proposal: Peter Singer and the Definition of Person by John Hymers [5] which could be suitable. DS Belgium (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

People with disabilities

In the criticism section the article currently mentions how several disabled rights groups have criticised or protested at his talks and it also mentions how his views on the disabled are misunderstood, but unless I missed it, what it doesn't really discuss is his views on people with disabilities except briefly in the context of the criticism/misunderstood. I appreciate it's likely rather complicated but the current set up is fairly jarring. At the very least the criticism section should be re-considered and perhaps re-written & renamed since it's rather odd to mention so much criticism when these views have been barely discussed. There are also other somewhat odd choices. E.g. it explains what voluntary euthanasia is but not non-voluntary and involuntary although I suspect people are more likely to be confused by either of these. Nil Einne (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Introduction to Peter Singer's page

I modified Peter Singer's page few minutes ago, by replacing Australian-Jewish to Australian-American. You resorted it back to Australian-Jewish by asserting that I have not provided a citation to a factual claim. The version you resorted the article to has no citation either to support Australian-Jewish. Furthermore, there is nothing Jewish about Peter Singer except his parents. He resides and holds a professorship at Princeton University, an American institution, and the article reflects all of these facts. A novice Wikipedia reader would get a more neutral view of Peter Singer, if the introductory sentence is switched to Australian-American. Apologies in advance, if I am not making use of the sandbox or the user-talk page appropriately.141.117.176.246 (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that the word "Jewish" belongs there, necessarily. However, we know he's Jewish because both of his parents are Jewish. Perhaps you're confused because "Jewish" can refer to both religion and ethnicity. And living and working in the United States does not make one an American; it means he's an Australian living and working in the United States. -- Irn (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Singer finds capital punishment ethical

http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/audio/data/000619 Speaking to the Carnegie Council ("The Voice for Ethics In International Affairs") Singer frankly admitted that his philosophic stance (which has no problem with infanticide under the right conditions) means that the death penalty isn't unethical either. This is heresy in academia, so Singer quickly said that he didn't support the death penalty, on the grounds that it was ineffective. But as a ethicist, he stuck to his guns. ("Ethics matter: a conversation with Peter Singer by Julia Taylor Kennedy. October 17, 2011 online at Policy Innovations.) NOTE: Contributors wishing to enrich this article's various topics will find this long interview a good layman's introduction to Singer's philosophy in general, from the lips of the philosopher himself.)

QUESTION: Naomi Segal.

Is there any possible scenario that you could imagine sanctioning the death penalty?

PETER SINGER: Is there any possible scenario where I could imagine? Look, if somebody came up with convincing evidence that the death penalty was a uniquely effective deterrent—let's say that for every murderer who was executed, there would be ten fewer murders—then, as a utilitarian, I would have to accept the death penalty. In fact, if the evidence was clear-cut enough and sound enough, even if it was only for every person executed, there were two fewer murderers or one and a half fewer murderers, I guess I would accept it.

But as I read it, there just isn't any such evidence. The evidence, if anything, seems to suggest the other way. Certainly, in the United States, the states that do not have the death penalty have lower murder rates than the states that do have the death penalty. The whole of the European Union, none of those states have the death penalty; they all have lower murder rates than the United States. So the evidence seems to me to be contrary to what I was suggesting.

And, certainly, I don't see other justifications for the death penalty. I don't see the point of punishment as being retribution. I think that is something that is—well, to my mind it's a little primitive really, the idea that somehow you take retribution by taking a life for a life. You can see why, in earlier societies, that was a way of responding to crime. But I would think that we understand a little bit more about the causes of crime, and understand a little bit more about what is really likely to be the best way to respond to it, in terms of having a moral, compassionate, and humane society. The death penalty doesn't seem to be it.

QUESTIONER: What about genocide?

PETER SINGER: I don't really see that genocide is any different in that sense. Certainly, you may want to lock people away who are guilty of those horrible crimes, but I don't really see a need to put them to death.

Again, in Europe we have, of course, now trials relating to genocide in former Yugoslavia. But those people are not being put to death when convicted of those crimes. Nobody there is really clamoring for blood for the blood that has been shed.Profhum (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Views on incest

Recommendation that a subsubsection be added to the article covering Singer's views on incest. Singer's position seems to be that he is unable to find any reason for incest to be morally wrong. Source: http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/peter-singer-the-jerry-springer-of-philosophy/

Levi Dettwyler (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Link

Link #45 does not work.

 Done Thanks! -- Irn (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

criticism

i'm not really sure what the phrase "conservative psychiatrist" means in this section. while calling someone a nazi-hunter has a certain specificity, the somewhat polemical nature of a category like "conservative" or "leftist" for that matter contains content that is more emotive than informative. i'd suggest that, if the psychiatrist in question needs to be categorized in order to inform the reader, then something else should be chosen to do it, or some more detail illucidating what is meant should be offered. chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.131.85 (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Bestiality

I removed this section, but my edit was instantly reverted:

"Commenting on Singer's article "Heavy Petting,"[50] in which he argues that zoosexual activity need not be abusive, and that relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed, Ingrid Newkirk, president of the animal rights group PETA, argued that, "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, [then] it may not be wrong." A few years later, Newkirk clarified in a letter to the Canada Free Press that she was strongly opposed to any exploitation of, and all sexual activity with, animals.[51]"

Even if properly cited, what's the point of listing Ingrid Newkirk's views on bestiality here? This article is about Peter Singer, not Ingrid Newkirk. We might as well start listing everyone else's views. Aquila89 (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It is relevant how someone reacts to Singer's views and that's why I initially restored the material. Having now carefully read the article that was being used as a source, I've changed my mind about this material, however. You are quite right that it should be removed, and I apologize for restoring it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

But will you restore it if you find a better source? Aquila89 (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No. I have no particular interest in adding material to this article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Is Singer Jewish?

An anon IP editor has removed categories related to Singer's jewishness, on the grounds that nothing in the article says he's a Jew. According to both tradition and current Israeli law (outlined in Jews) his parentage makes him a Jew. When I revert he re-reverts. I want to avoid an edit war so can someone else give their opinion on this? Andyjsmith (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. Technically, it's right, but is it helpful as a category? I don't know why the IP is removing it, but I'd be curious to see why you think it should be included. -- Irn (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Need for a specific section on Singer and Disability?

Singer is a particularly controversial figure, openly advocating the killing of certain groups of disabled people. In the view of the disability community this makes him an active advocate of Eugenics and hate crime, possibly a unique position for a prominent academic to hold without being stripped of his position. Yet there is no section specifically addressing the controversy. His position on the killing of disabled people is first discussed in the Animal Liberation section, which, speaking as a disabled person is problematic to the point of being actively insulting. It is particularly problematic that Animal Liberation is given a higher position in the section hierarchy than the further discussion in 'Euthanasia and Infanticide', and that neither attempts to analyse the perception by and implications for disabled people of his arguments, arguably violating NPOV by only presenting Singer's position in the face of clear evidence his views are intensely controversial.

I would also question the NPOV balance of relegating the objections of disabled people to his position on the killing of disabled people in 'Euthanasia and Infanticide' to third after other ethicists and religious critics. Surely as the group whose killing is being advocated disabled people's position on this should be granted the dignity of a whole sentence to themselves, not simply a clause tacked on to the end of 'religious critics'? Perhaps we could even be allowed to a paragraph to discuss the fundamental position of disabled people under the Social Model of Disability that a disabled life is fully equivalent to a non-disabled life and that any failure of society to provide us with the necessary accessibility adjustments (whether physical, institutional or societal) to enable that equality is active discrimination. Equally the coverage of protests under 'Criticism' and 'Protests' appears more interested in saying 'And Singer was vindicated' rather than actually outlining the position of the disabled protesters. In fact the opposition of disabled people to any resurgence in Eugenics and to euthanasia advocacy in general is never really addressed (this is an ongoing problem for the disability movement in that the media rarely cover the extensive opposition to these by disability activists - see for instance the various speeches by the disabled peer and noted disability rights activist Baroness Jane Campbell in the House of Lords) while the functional equivalence of Singer's position to Eugenics is barely touched on. I would argue that NPOV would be better served by retitling the section 'Advocacy for the Euthanasia of Certain Disabled People' which describes both Singer's position and the concerns of disabled people wrt that position.

I would particularly note a logical flaw in the 'Protests' section which states 'Singer explains "my views are not threatening to anyone, even minimally"' However this is only true if you explicitly accept Singer's view that a severely disabled infant is not a person. If you disagree, then Singer's view that the infant should be killed is threatening both to disabled people in general, who must remain ever watchful for any resurgence of Eugenics and the horrors of the Holocaust (which came first for disabled Germans in the Aktion T4 programme) and for the disabled infant in particular. Citing only Singer's view here, and not its logical alternative, is a clear violation of NPOV (and arguably gives Singer's individual opinion primacy over that of disabled people en masse).

At the moment the entry reads as though it was written by an ethicist explaining Singer's position for other ethicists. But, given Singer's controversial position, the article also needs to be accessible to disabled people and their supporters and advocates, and it does not currently provide this. As many ethicists hold that disabled people aren't actually entitled to a view on discussions of bio-ethics and disability (c.f. discussions on the forum of the Journal of Medical Ethics after the publication of Giubilini and Minerva's paper advocating post-natal abortion of disabled babies - note the express similarity with Singer's position), the article clearly needs to be reworked by someone who is not an ethicist and is able to restore NPOV. As a disabled person and activist I can't do this, because my opposition to any advocacy of the right to kill us is fundamental to my identity as a disabled person, but I hope someone within the Wikipedia community who is a member of neither group will take up the challenge.

As separate issues the reference to 'advocates for disabled people' in the opening sentence of the 'Criticism of Singer' section is problematic as it implies disabled people need non-disabled people to speak for us, this would be better reworded as 'disabled people' or 'disability activists'. The paragraph relating to Singer and his mother in 'Euthanasia and Infanticide' is problematic from the disability rights perspective as it grants Singer's experience of his mother's Alzheimer's as a carer full equivalancy with disabled people's experience of disability, whereas the position of the disability rights movement is that the experience and beliefs of the disabled person themselves must always take primacy over that of any carer. 92.238.224.101 (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is a Wikipedia article about Singer, not about disability rights. It should probably mention why people find his views controversial, but it need not strive to give equal weight to those positions.

I should also say that even your claims about Singer seem to misrepresent his views and the views of other ethicists. For instance, Singer does not support "killing certain groups of disabled people." He argues that people with certain birth defects who are likely to have little or no quality of life may permissibly be euthanized pending such a decision by the person responsible for making medical decisions for them. He would point out that this is similar to current practice, which allows parents to decide to deny treatment for such children. It simply prevents further suffering and additional medical costs. (I offer this gloss on Singer's views without endorsement.) A worse howler is your characterization of the Giubilini and Minerva article (by which I take you to mean their 2012 article, "After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?"). First of all, they are claiming that it should be permissible to abort any neonate, not just a disabled one. There's some sense in which they think that the interest of disabled neonates doesn't count in the decision of whether or not to have a "post-birth abortion," but only because they think that the interest of no neonates, disabled or not, is relevant in that decision. 2601:47:4200:542:CAF7:33FF:FE77:D800 (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Criticism About the Epistemological and other Problems of Maximal Marginal Utility

Appreciate the big red box at the beginning of the talk page.

I read the 3 references to criticisms of utilitarianism in the article and that's fine. I wonder, however, about three even larger criticism which must result from actually putting Singer's idea of Maximal Marginal Utility into practice. Has nobody written about this before? In summary:

1. The pleasure and pain states of the subjects nor their weights are all knowable.

2. These states are not independent either, and computing a marginal utility, even if all parameters were known, is intractable (consider the problem of reasoning with Bayesian networks)

3. Causal relationships seem not to be considered at all.

To 1: How do we even know how much less a newborn values its life than, say, an adult pig? And how much do we know any of this from an unborn child? Who is to judge this?

To 2: The pleasure / pain state of one subject often influences the pleasure / pain state of other subjects by means of empathy and sympathy.

Computing the marginal utility of all interdependent individuals is computationally intractable.

There may be complex feedback dependencies which essentially render the marginal utility function a completely unknowable entity, therefore, the claim that one action leads to greater marginal utility than another is never actually proven. It is only local reasoning or heuristics that in the end give practical guidance to action, with all claims on "greater good" being unproven claims.

Sympathy effects may cause the needs of some individuals be rated higher in the overall utility than others, less sympathetic individuals. This may be deemed unjust, but it may also simply be an explanation why deontological ethics may be a practical instance of utilitarian ethics. For example, if a majority feels more sympathetic to humans than to pigs, this abhorred "speciism" would be entirely justified by the principles of utilitarian ethics.

This critique is not unlike Hayek's critique of planning: the planners can never know the marginal value distribution, it is only the individuals in their interactions which establish the hidden global utility function in a way no one person or committee can know. The "greater good" is simply unknowable.

To 3: If I am wasting all my money today on drinking and tomorrow my wife, children and I go hungry, and our hunger (especially my wife and children's) are considered to have some weight in the marginal utility function, while the need to eat of a person who has been prudent about his resources yesterday is considered less urgent (because he does not hunger), this would always justify taking the resources from the prudent people and giving them to the irresponsible. Because the utility function does not contain responsibility for one's past actions, only the current state of pleasure and pain.

These arguments must have been made in the literature. Should they not be mentioned? They look pretty fundamental to me. I know there ought to be references, which is why I put this here, not in the article.

Thanks. Gschadow (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Peter Singer

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Peter Singer's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Waldau2001p5":

• From Richard D. Ryder: Waldau, Paul (2001). The Specter of Speciesism: Buddhist and Christian Views of Animals. Oxford University Press, pp. 5, 23–29.
• From Speciesism: Waldau (2001), pp. 5, 23–29

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding information to the effective altruism and euthanasia sections

I have added information about Singer's views on global poverty, which he first argued for in his famous 1972 essay, 'Famine, Affluence and Morality'. To not include information about this essay in Singer's entry would be a mistake, in my view.

I have also summarised Singer's views on abortion in the euthanasia section. His views on abortion were referenced but weren't actually explained, which was bizarre.

Vidur10 (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Singer: Animals have greater moral values than human infants

William Lane Craig states "Well, there are certainly ethicists like Peter Singer who think that whales and porpoises and great apes have moral values and even greater moral value than, say, human infants. So the questions might look a little bit different but I don’t think that it would effect my argument. He does think that these whales and porpoises and great apes have objective moral value. As I understand him, he is not a relativist by any means, he is a moral realist who thinks it is really morally wrong to say kill porpoises in trying to drag nets to catch tuna. And therefore he would agree with premise (2), that objective moral values exist. But my question for him would be even more pressing on (1), why think that things like porpoises and chimpanzees and human beings have objective moral value on atheism? These are just natural spin offs of evolution and it seems arbitrary to think that these strange moral properties like goodness or badness impinge on these creatures" (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/can-we-be-good-without-god-nflc-washington). I think it should be included with a reference that Singer believes that animals have greater moral values than human infants. This is currently missing from the article. 182.255.99.214 (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be in keeping with Singer's arguments, as he doesn't general argue in terms of moral value - as a preference utilitarian, his interests lie in the meeting of preferences, rather than in any intrinsic moral value. At any rate, I'd be wary of using a transcript from a speech, as it hasn't undergone peer review. - Bilby (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course Singer believes in moral value. The intrinsic moral value of meeting preferences. And certain non-human adult animals have more developed preference capabilities than human infants. This isn't a criticism of Singer, it's just a plain description of his views. What could you possibly mean by "he doesn't general argue in terms of moral value - as a preference utilitarian, his interests lie in the meeting of preferences"? A preference utilitarian is of course talking about moral value. - Atfyfe (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, meeting preferences can be described as having moral value, but it is the meeting of those preferences which is important, rather than the individual who's preferences are being met. - Bilby (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's at least correct the spelling...

This may have already been done, in which case, apologies. However, the first line of the Peter Singer page I have just read asserts that Singer is a moral philosopher and a supporter of 'beastialty' (sic.). Now, whilst Singer's views on human/non-human sexual relations may be controversial and indeed do not condemn all such relations as morally wrong, to label him a supporter of bestiality (and to mis-spell the word) in the first line is clearly an ad hominem attack. Singer's views on the topic are dealt with in context further down the page anyway. If any description of his ethical or moral position is warranted here, surely it should be along the lines of "animal rights philosopher" or "utilitarian philosopher". Can someone more skilled than me fix this please? 82.37.43.144 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to point that out! You're right that that was totally out of place, and, luckily, it's already been fixed! Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

link down

http://bc.barnard.edu/~sberman/Pages/publications/Brill.pdf leads to a scam site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flocu (talk • contribs) 10:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! I've added an archive link to the citation. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Peter Singer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061012013948/https://uc.princeton.edu/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=677&Itemid=20 to http://uc.princeton.edu/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=677&Itemid=20
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080229012301/http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.pdf to http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060711211934/http://reason.com/0012/rb.the.shtml to http://www.reason.com/0012/rb.the.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616221648/http://www.gg.gov.au/res/file/2012/honours/qb2012/Media%20Notes%20AC%20%28final%29.pdf to http://www.gg.gov.au/res/file/2012/honours/qb2012/Media%20Notes%20AC%20(final).pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

What Singer says, and what he does can be contrasted - and correlated. He noted January 10, 2021 (in a tweet) that he and his wife Renata are celebrating their 50th vegetarian anniversary, which implies that they became vegetarian on 1/10/1971 (50 years earlier). The consequentialist argument for vegetarianism has been made repeatedly, and the arguments developed over long periods of time. However, this article currently plays down the evolution of the Singers' vegetarian practice and advocacy and speaks more of the overt (and clear) points Singer makes in declaring the moral importance of (at least some) nonhumans. Can that be researched and resolved? MaynardClark (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

References

This article hides Singer’s well-known support for the Infanticide of Disabled Babies

I am a disability rights activist and I know that in disability right circles Peter Singer is known for supporting the infanticide of disabled babies; that’s what he’s primarily known for in the disabled community. That information is buried in the article under “other views.” In order to be fair to the disabled community, that information needs to be in the first paragraph where all of his other specific beliefs that he is known for are discussed. Regular people who are reading the article need to know about Peter Singer Support for the infanticide of disabled babies in the same way that they were deserve to know upfront that a well-known thinker supported killing any other people group. Burying that information in the “other views” part of the article gives average readers skimming the article the impression that Singer is a run-of-the mill utilitarian thinker. He’s also a bigot and people deserve to know that. 2603:8080:1501:3816:AC4C:F678:8ED:BC5A (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Including information about Singer’s views on PWD id not expressing a personal view

If I said, “As a disabled person, I think that Peter Singer is an asshole,” that would be me expressing personal disapproval of him. That’s not what I did. Rather. I included and cited information about Singer’s ableist views & the disabled community’s response to them. That is very relevant information that Wikipedia readers deserve to have right away when they look Peter Singer; it’s neutral information about Peter Singer. 2603:8080:1501:3816:79F1:4493:4B0:194B (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but unsourced statements such as "Singer is one of the most controversial and reviled public intellectuals in the world" aren't very neutral. I've reverted because of POV writing, claims that were not supported by sources, and that the article already covers this issue. - Bilby (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Not taking sides it’s not the same as white washing someone’s views

Including information about Peter singers support for killing disable people and the disabled community’s response to that is not the same as taking a side. The way the article is written makes the disabled community’s perspective. These are not neutral views, moreover, and it is not appropriate to simply not take a side, anymore than it is appropriate to not take a side regarding the rhetoric of Neo Nazis & David Duke 2603:8080:1501:3816:79F1:4493:4B0:194B (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your input- if you would like to attempt to change Wikipedia's policy on neutrality- please compose a proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy). But until such a time as policy is changed, neutrality must be maintained, even here, on Neo Nazi's and David Duke. While we can discuss notable responses, we cannot, ourselves, have a response. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's very clear that Wikipedia does not have a "neutral" view of David Duke and the Neo Nazis. Because, they're David Duke. And the Neo Nazis. I don't think that the people here fully grasp the issues at stake, have training in the connections between Singer and vicious abuse against PWD, etc. You all seem to think that infanticide and taking services away from people with disabilities so that those resources can be spent on people in 3rd world countries is a matter of polite debate. Well, it's not. Progo35 (talk) 04:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

How about this: What about a section on the page dedicated to the disabled community's position on his views, and the efforts that people with disabilities have made to answer Singer? That's completely neutral information. It's an objective fact that disability rights activists and disability studies scholars havre spent a lot of time fighting Singer and answering him. The fact that this has occurred might not be very flattering to Singer, which is something I'm sure that his supporters regret, but including in-depth information about the disabled community's opposition to him does not violate Wikipedia's neutrality policy. The facts are what they are. The section could be called "Peter Singer and the Disabled Community." That could balance both the issue of neutrality regarding a living person's views and the disabled community's interests in not having our needs and concerns invisibilized. Progo35 (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Fine, but you need to bring reliable sources WP:RS that support your proposals. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 06:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is more than clear that this can't deserve a whole section, no matter how good the sourcing is. Singer has many controversial views, and there are tons of reactions to them. Should we also collect them and list them? Obviously not. They just don't belong in the article. Cartago3468 (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

More Names?

When searching on Scopus for people named Singer, Peter, Affiliation Princeton University, i get 4 author results:

1. Singer, Peter A. - Author details - Scopus Preview: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=7401840603, Author of the Book "The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically" - This is him, i am sure
2. Singer, Peter Nicholas - Author details - Scopus Preview: https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=12774830300, Co-Author of "Ethical choices behind quantifications of fair contributions under the Paris Agreement" (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01015-8), published April 2021. In this paper his affiliation is named "University Center for Human Values, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA", which can be found: https://uchv.princeton.edu/people/faculty. Neither the current version nor the January 2021 WBM capture (https://web.archive.org/web/20210123104641/https://uchv.princeton.edu/people/faculty) nor the June 2021 capture (https://web.archive.org/web/20210617073555/https://uchv.princeton.edu/people/faculty) nor the older March 2020 capture (https://web.archive.org/web/20200316045052/https://uchv.princeton.edu/people/faculty) mention any Peter Singer different from the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics. This lets me believe that Singer, Peter Nicholas is the same person
3. https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57210476561 appears to be the same person, the Monash University affiliation in the profile is an old affiliation.
4. https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=57218630440 is a profile that includes only one article (twice)

What about the second result? Does it indicate that Peter Singer has the additional name Nicholas? Or is this a different person who is not mentioned on the institute's website? Or is it a Scopus error? --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)