I think Peter Singer& #39;s work is really valuable--wait, hear me out! Its "good philosophy." He adopts premises, mechanically adopts the conclusions consistent with those premises, no matter how reprehensible. The value is in sharply demonstrating the limits of "good philosophy"

Sincerely though I think there is something admirable. It does us a service. Also admirable: so far as I understand, he has always put his money where his mouth is. He is not only a vegan, he gives away a huge portion of his income given his views on global distributive justice

I should also say, since that one quote is circulating, that it& #39;s worth reading this whole interview. I think it& #39;s unfair to identify Singer as somehow uniquely "racist" but I also think it shows ways in which he is deeply wrong https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/peter-singer-is-committed-to-controversial-ideas">https://www.newyorker.com/culture/t...

Ultimately, this question nails it: Singer& #39;s participation in the Journal of Controversial ultimately forces him to put his cards on the table about whether he is more committed to a consequentialist ethics or to his vision of good philosophy and, well.

Last? second last? thing. When it comes to Singer& #39;s particular strand of effective altruism - an apolitical quietism presented as a realist personal ethos - I think I have never read a more effective takedown than @amiasrinivasan& #39;s critique& #39;s of MacAskill https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v37/n18/amia-srinivasan/stop-the-robot-apocalypse">https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper...

And, as it turns out, as for the crucial flaw at the centre of Singer& #39;s philosophical praxis, it turns out that @amiasrinivasan has also written a lucid takedown of that, too https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2016/august/the-distinction-between-an-argument-and-its-likely-effects">https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2016...