Philosophy Now Forum

Howard Darmstadter shows us why the Australian abnegator is wrong.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/89/Pete ... Bad_Person

Philosophy Now wrote:Howard Darmstadter shows us why the Australian abnegator is wrong.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/89/Pete ... Bad_Person

According to the author, Singer's main principles are:
'maximize pleasure and minimize suffering', and
'all pleasure or suffering counts equally'

He states further: "You can question how to apply these principles in particular situations, but for Singer there are no principles more fundamental." (underlining added)

I agree with the author's criticism of Singer's position. Further, I would put this question to Singer: Why are these two principles the most fundamental?

Why isn't the first principle of synderisis thought -" "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided" - a more fundamental principle of ethics?
___________
"Similarly, the capacity or disposition that allows the practical reason to apprehend intuitively the principles or laws that preside over its discursive reasoning regarding human action is called synderesis. Just as "being" is the first notion apprehended absolutely, so also "good" is the first thing that is apprehended by the practical reason, since everything that acts does so for an end which possesses the quality of goodness. That is why the first principle or law of the practical reason is "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided". Also the precepts of natural law can be considered object of synderesis insofar as all the things towards which the human being has a natural inclination are naturally apprehended by the intellect as good and therefore as objects to be pursued, and their opposites as evils to be avoided." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synderesis

DARMSTADTER'S PHILOSOPHICAL QUIBBLES

The Currency of Delayed Reform

Premise 1
Approaching ethics on the basis of absolute moral principles should be rejected on the grounds that it leads to "awkward", "unpalatable", "unacceptable", "uncomfortable" and "abhorrent" consequences.

Premise 2
Singer employs principles such as

• "[M]aximize pleasure and minimize suffering; and
• [A]ll pleasure or suffering counts equally. ..."

which, if taken in isolation and to their logical extremes, lead to such consequences e.g.

• "giving nearly everything you have to charity"
• not affording "your children even ordinary advantages"
• "a zero tolerance policy for lions" (Bernard Williams).
• vegetarianism

Premise 3
Singer's arguments against such moral absolutism are "feeble", "halfhearted" and "disingenuous".

Conclusion
Singer is a moral abolutist.

While it is true that Singer's analysis often leads to challenging conclusions, rejecting them without serious consideration i.e. just because they make us uncomfortable, is to miss the opportunity to view important issues in a new light.
A light that that may help to loosen the deadlock of seemingly intractable ethical dilemmas.
Advocates of abolitionism, universal suffrage and civil rights were dismissed as disruptive radicals for many decades by their contemporaries.
The currency of delayed reform is avoidable suffering.

Praise

Howard Darmstadter:
For the general public, [Singer] may be the most influential philosopher of the last half century. ...

[Singer] is an excellent critic of prevailing moral orthodoxies. ...
[When viewed] not as a philosopher dispensing theoretical arguments, but as a campaigner for the cause of animals and against suffering humanity ... he can be quite convincing.
His arguments can make us see the errors in much moral posturing.
In questioning our assumptions, we may come to appreciate issues we would rather not confront.

[His] writings are full of touching examples of human and animal suffering that may move us to act, regardless of philosophical quibbles. ...

We naturally feel compassion without needing a philosophical argument ...

Feeling drives behavior.
And how we feel depends on what we think.
History is full of examples of destructive ideas causing otherwise decent people to perpetrate atrocities.
It is not human compassion that has changed - over the last 50, 100, or 200 years - our attitudes to slavery, to other races, to the status of women, to the treatment of homosexuals etc.
It is ideas that have changed.
And ideas are the domain of philosophy.

Darmstadter's Argument against an Obligation to Assist

Howard Darmstadter:
Suppose you see a child drowning in a pool.
You can rescue the child at no danger to yourself, but at the cost of ruining your new suit ...
Clearly, you are morally obliged to wade in, suit be damned.
But ... if you are a moderately well-off citizen of a first world nation, donating 10% of your income to CARE or Oxfam will similarly relieve much suffering, with only a modest impingement on your lifestyle.
As with the drowning child [y]ou have to grab your chequebook and wade on in. ...

This thought experiment is an illustration of the proximity bias built into natural empathy.
(Given that it evolved in the context of living in small groups where a localized sense of empathy formed the basis for the reciprocity and cooperation essential for survival.)

Peter Singer:
How we deal with complete strangers on the other side of the world has become one of the most important moral issues of our times and we don't have the right evolved responses to it. ...
[The drowning child scenario demonstrates that] our evolved responses are not good enough and we have to think about the situation intellectually ...
(Religion and Science)

[W]e have moral instincts.
[W]e often make judgments ... without reflection or reason, but I don't think they're very reliable ...
[W]hen we try and do serious moral philosophy or ethics, we should try and move beyond those judgments.
(Utilitarianism)

Darmstadter misses the essential point of the scenario.
He objects to absolute moral principles on theoretical and practical grounds and interprets the Drowning Child through the filter of this objection.
He believes that such principles invariably lead to extreme and unacceptable consequences and fail to accommodate issues of scale and the obligations of others:

Howard Darmstadter:
Moral rules can’t generally be applied in an unlimited accumulation ...
[T]hey can be overwhelmed by numbers and by questions about the obligations of other people. ...

Would your obligation be different if

• there were hundreds of people observing the child [or]
• you encountered a hundred such children every day[?] ...

Perhaps [you'd] think

• ‘Why does this all fall on me?’ and walk on by, pretending you don’t hear the child’s screams ...
• [W]hy shouldn’t it be someone
  who knows the child, or
  who can get to the child fastest, or
  who’s wearing cheaper clothing? ...

Alternatively you could] just spend more time away from pools. ...

Seriously.

This is a very literal interpretation.
It is obvious that the empathic basis of ethics can and does break down under circumstances where are people are brutalized to the point of indifference to the suffering of others (e.g. in some war torn failed state in which civil society has completely disintegrated).

Agents and Actions

Howard Darmstadter:
Peter Singer says you are a bad person. ...
Peter Singer [argues] that you are morally deficient if you eat meat. ...
[T]here’s nothing in Singer’s arguments that can ... prove that you are a bad person.

Peter Singer:
The appropriateness of praise and blame is ... a separate issue from the rightness or wrongness of actions.
The former evaluates the agent; the latter evaluates the action.
(Practical Ethics, p. 198)

Consequentialism is about the assessment of the rightness or wrongness of actions based on their anticipated outcomes.
It says nothing about the moral status of intentional agents who cause harm or refrain from doing good.

It is Darmstadter who is saying "Peter Singer says you are a bad person", not Peter Singer.

Neuroscience has shown that losses and gains are not evaluated equally by people, so Singer has been proven wrong through science. There is no added need to speculate on what he has to offer, empirically, he is wrong.

ForgedinHell wrote:Neuroscience has shown that losses and gains are not evaluated equally by people, so Singer has been proven wrong through science. There is no added need to speculate on what he has to offer, empirically, he is wrong.

you are missing the point

he - being a philosopher - makes no empirical claims

rather he says that empirical facts are of no moral consequence

there are good evolutionary reasons for me sometimes being tempted to be nasty to other people for personal gain

but the fact that these reasons exist could in no way justify my being nasty