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.
- Recalling a Film From the Liberation of the Camps
- Skull Fossil Offers New Clues on Human Journey From Africa
- Are crude conspiracies right? Research shows nations really do go to war over oil
- Famed SC civil rights protesters have convictions erased
- A Fight About Taxing The Wealthy, A Century Before President Obama
- Claire Strom to Step Down as Editor of Agricultural History
- Joan Peters’s legacy assessed by one of her fiercest critics, Norman Finkelstein
- West Point historian says if his cadets can understand the history of war, so can Congress
- Australian historian Alan Atkinson wins $100,000 literary prize