Peter Singer's Hypocrisy Continues Unabated
comments powered by Disqus
Aeon J. Skoble - 3/12/2009
James Otteson - 3/12/2009
There's a lot more than that left out. Singer doesn't discuss (and as far as I know never has) the causes of poverty or the causes of wealth, and he has given no serious consideration to what the economic and moral consequences would be if governments actually adopted his recommendations. And I can't believe he's still recycling that child-drowning-in-pond analogy, which is now nearly 40 years old!
Thanks for posting this, Aeon. I'll put an entry about it on my own blog as well (with a hat tip to you).
Shawn - 3/9/2009
What I found most interesting was what was missing in the article: no mention of what freer markets and societies have done to lift people out of poverty.
- Did a historian who said he’s a victim of McCarthyism get the story wrong?
- Stephanie Coontz’s work on the history of marriage cited by the Supreme Court.
- How Does It Feel To Have One’s Work as a Historian Cited by the Supreme Court? Cool. Very Cool. Thank You Very Much.
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- David Hackett Fischer wins $100,000 prize for lifetime achievement in military writing