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.
- South Dakota drops history as a high school requirement
- The Forgotten History Of 'Violent Displacement' That Helped Create The National Parks
- Gospel of Jesus’ Wife May Be Authentic, New Tests Suggest
- Architect Sought for Obama’s Presidential Library Complex
- 2016 election's leading candidates have strong Jewish family ties
- Historians tackle America’s mass incarceration problem
- Report: Russian studies in crisis
- Ken Burns: Donald Trump’s birtherism — a “politer way of saying the ‘N-word'” — proves America isn’t remotely “post-racial”
- Medievalist calls on historians to welcome pop culture
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?