out of tune Singer...


Chrisx Ess

The Grauniad are quite right to speak about Singer as "a" leading philosopher...at least in the sense that his views are often aired, and he is very well known in the small pond of philosophy. Works of his are frequently used by university philosophy departments as set books - mainly to provide a contrast to those works they really approve of. He really gets trashed in the seminars.
In the hushed domain of philosophy, loudmouthed Aussie Singer is regarded as a kind of philosophical thug. Ethicists [there's a new word for most of you!] really are appalled by him. His work is contradictory and largely based in political correctness which IS NOT an ethical or moral set of concepts.

Since 1975 when "Animal Rights" first emerged, Singer has been bleating about what he calls "speciesism" which has failed completely to be adopted as a mode of political correctness. Ask anyone if they've ever heard of of it. For Singer, "speciesism" is about human beings unjustly putting human interests before animals. Sound familiar? Not to the vast majority of you I'll be bound.

The philosophers hate the very idea of speciesism , as philosophy is about the HUMAN condition.
That's enough about Singer. I really don't think he's a problem. Speciesism will never be adopted by a meat-eating population...our dangers lie elsewhere...