Arthur Caplan’s blurb on Singer is brief, pointing only toward Singer’s significance. But it does provide an insightful grasp of the relationship many of us, who are inclined towards ethics, have with Singer’s work (and him, by implication). Caplan writes:
It is easy to demonise Singer … since his theory points toward conclusionsCaplan and I agree in disagreeing with Singer, but I am willing to concede that his arguments are always worthy of careful consideration. (I am one of those who has been trying to pull apart his arguments for the moral consideration of animals so that I can maintain my carnivorism in clear conscience, ever since Singer turned me into a vegetarian for a couple of weeks in 2002). I am also drawn to his arguments regarding infanticide and euthanasia.
that some find morally repugnant … Those who scorn his views can
rarely produce an argument about why he is wrong – they simply don’t like
his conclusions. But ethics is all about arguments, not moral pronouncements …
he is a man whose reasoning merits consideration by everyone. There are few
philosophers, living or dead, about whom that can be said.
I would like to open this post up for a discussion of Singer’s corpus.