tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14186004.post4222977812653408774..comments2023-11-10T09:17:43.638-08:00Comments on Prisstopolis: Rahm bahm thank you mahmPrisstopolishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07982217149554870180noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14186004.post-33578951364971948862009-11-20T23:33:33.490-08:002009-11-20T23:33:33.490-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14186004.post-48969787399963200212009-02-11T14:56:00.000-08:002009-02-11T14:56:00.000-08:00Elizabeth: I was mostly with you until your last s...Elizabeth: I was mostly with you until your last sentence. Singer does not ask us to develop a standard of inferior and superior and then to cull accordingly. His concept of utilitarianism does include preserving a diversity of species, even at the cost of individual humans. This is a new concept, and goes against what many of us grew up believing. I'm not convinced that everything Singer espouses is completely heartfelt. I wonder if some of it has been put out there to be shocking, to garner attention. Clearly, I am going to have to read the rest of his books.Prisstopolishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07982217149554870180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14186004.post-5922077429161874732009-02-11T14:36:00.000-08:002009-02-11T14:36:00.000-08:00Singer may adore Kant, but he is NOT a Kantian. He...Singer may adore Kant, but he is NOT a Kantian. He defends his positions (some of them, to my mind, morally repugnant) on utilitarian (the greatest good for the greatest number) grounds. It is the aggregate good he seeks. In a Kantian, or rights-based framework, an individual can not be sacrificed to achieve a greater good. Ironic, no, for a "Christian" philosopher?<BR/><BR/>It is important to distinguish the “right” from the “good.” Whereas classical philosophy (Aristotle) begins with a view of the common good and utilitarian philosophy (Singer) attempts to aggregate the good (the greatest good for the greatest number) both threaten individual liberty – insofar as in a pluralistic society we can expect to find different conceptions of the good – for Kant the *right* is prior to the *good.* Within a Kantian framework, there is room for disagreement, with egalitarian liberals such as John Rawls defending a welfare state and libertarians such as Robert Nozick claiming that redistributive policies violate individual rights. But a Kantian will be distinguished by a concern for primacy of individual right, something Singer does NOT acknowledge, at least not for those he regards as inferior.Elizabeth A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/18001814530730336992noreply@blogger.com