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.
- Egyptian ‘Mona Lisa’ A Fake
- The Story Behind ‘Woman in Gold’: Nazi Art Thieves and One Painting’s Return
- Scott Walker, Allergic to Dogs, May Run Against Political History
- Russian History Receives a Makeover That Starts With Ivan the Terrible
- Parsing Ronald Reagan’s Words for Early Signs of Alzheimer’s
- Joan Waugh on Grant's and Lee's 'gentlemen's agreement' ending the Civil War
- Charlatan or Sage? Contested Legacy of the late Dr. Ben, a Father of African Studies
- Historians make it easy for visitors to DC to understand the history of the Mall
- History's Grandin Wins Bancroft Prize for "The Empire of Necessity"
- Nobel prize-winning scientist writes a history of science