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 - 3/8/2009
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.
- VW fires corporate historian who drew attention to wartime ties to Nazis
- Trump Recording Narrows Divide on Sexual Assault
- SUNY professor says Trump win at least 87 percent certain; other polls 'bunk'
- Petition Started to Include Clarence Thomas in National African American Museum
- The Racial Politics of Nat Turner Tours
- Garry Wills says there’s one human test we can use to decide who’s the better candidate: Trump or Clinton
- Get to Know the Semifinalists for the National Book Award
- Steven Runciman — historian, tease and professional enigma — is the subject of a biography
- Historian Eric Foner: Trump is Logical Conclusion of What the GOP Has Been Doing for Decades
- Ken Burns developing 'The Gene' based on Mukherjee's bestseller