I think Peter Singer'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
Ultimately, this question nails it: Singer'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.
You can follow @LMcHugh_Russell.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: