One would be challenged to find a more amoral philosophy than utilitarianism. Give him some credit for recognizing that the left today sees no boundaries; the idea of helping the disadvantaged has shifted to infantilizing them, which has the polar opposite effect of the original intent. Maybe that intent was not so genuine, after all; increasingly, grievance serves as an industry rather than a cause and for some causes, it has degenerated into a racket.
The real problem with “utility” is “useful to whom?” or “to what?” A majority? Since Singer attempts to dignify animals with a quasi-human moral status, his “majority” must refer to “living beings”, which leaves “utility” as a mere chaos, rather than a criterion.
“Usefulness to whom” doesn’t pose a problem to utilitarianism because there isn’t a philosopher king deciding what utility *is* and how to maximize it. No person matters more than another. And each person has different values. Therefore, each person decides what utility is for themself. People will generally tell you what makes them happy and what doesn’t. And even when they don’t (or they’re mistaken), they reveal their preferences by the choices they make. The same is true of animals. He doesn’t dignify animals with human moral status, because his moral framework was never human to begin with. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by chaos because that word means different things to different people. But I get the impression that you think the absence of moral central planning will lead to problems. The western legal system is based on Jeremy Bentham’s conception of utilitarianism. When people make choices that increase their utility at the expense of another, we have legal systems to settle disputes. The system works quite well compared to the alternatives and despite the “chaotic” variation in individual utility.
A failure to accept open borders is not a failure at all, it is a success. There are good, practical reasons for having borders in a world where there is such desperate inequality. Open borders mean the end of order. Open borders are effectively an invitation to loot.
Open borders mean those who have more will soon have nothing at all, because they will be completely displaced. For evidence of that look at any wholly colonised country.
Open borders would lead to an influx so overwhelming that the very infrastructure of the open bordered country would collapse, because so many would come who have no capacity to contribute to the level required to sustain it.
Last edited 2 years ago by Kremlington Swan
Annette Kralendijk
2 years ago
“And in fact I think freedom of speech has been something that the Left traditionally has championed. “
This doesn’t much matter since the left no longer champions free speech, in fact, the left stifles free speech in any case in which someone disagrees.
We have to live in the world as it is today. This is the problem with philosophers, they often want to pretend we can live in the past. Where is the evidence that the left can ever get to champion free speech? While philosophers are nice and all looking back, what the left needs is someone who will actually fight for free speech, someone brave enough to go against the leftist tide of squelching free speech, which is a right that must be continually re-won. Where is that brave progressive or leftie? No sign of them yet.
It all depends who is in the ascendent and who is in power. Whoever is in power will seek to protect their position, whoever is in the ascendant will aim to subvert them to gain power for themselves. Right now the left are in power and the right are the counter-culture. Which seems weird to those of us who have never know anything but the other way around.
When I grew up the right were most definitely in charge but the left were in the ascendant. All the ‘cool kids’ were lefties fighting the implacably conservative establishment. The left has now entirely won the culture war and become the establishment – it just doesn’t realise it.
“It all depends who is in the ascendent and who is in power” absolutely not. Regardless of who is in political office, the left needs a free speech champion, someone unafraid to buck the leftist tide of squelching speech.
If by ‘the Left’ you mean the currently dominant voices on the left then I have to agree with you. But those of us lefties of the libertarian persuasion are still around, and our day may yet return, who knows? I’m proud to be a socialist, free speech advocate and lockdown sceptic, but I admit it can be lonely at times.
I’m a libertarian myself. Libertarians are not, in my view, leftists due to their distaste for authoritarian government. Progressives and the left are both in favor of authoritarianism.
Socialism, due to its dependence on government control of most facets of people’s lives are also not libertarian. they are diametrically opposed in fact.
Stainy
2 years ago
Be warned. Singer’s Golden Ass is abridged and has a modern conclusion. There are lots of good translations of the text that has survived. Apuleius included details if the Isis cult in this work. It is of interest in its own right, not as a modern tale of human morality applied to animals.
Fraser Bailey
2 years ago
People like Singer have a lot to answer for, such as the fact that Sweden now has the highest murder rate in Europe, a fact that even the Swedish media is now acknowledging. (They will still blame middle class white men, but at least they are acknowledging the facts).
One would be challenged to find a more amoral philosophy than utilitarianism. Give him some credit for recognizing that the left today sees no boundaries; the idea of helping the disadvantaged has shifted to infantilizing them, which has the polar opposite effect of the original intent. Maybe that intent was not so genuine, after all; increasingly, grievance serves as an industry rather than a cause and for some causes, it has degenerated into a racket.
The real problem with “utility” is “useful to whom?” or “to what?” A majority? Since Singer attempts to dignify animals with a quasi-human moral status, his “majority” must refer to “living beings”, which leaves “utility” as a mere chaos, rather than a criterion.
“Usefulness to whom” doesn’t pose a problem to utilitarianism because there isn’t a philosopher king deciding what utility *is* and how to maximize it. No person matters more than another. And each person has different values. Therefore, each person decides what utility is for themself.
People will generally tell you what makes them happy and what doesn’t. And even when they don’t (or they’re mistaken), they reveal their preferences by the choices they make. The same is true of animals. He doesn’t dignify animals with human moral status, because his moral framework was never human to begin with.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by chaos because that word means different things to different people. But I get the impression that you think the absence of moral central planning will lead to problems.
The western legal system is based on Jeremy Bentham’s conception of utilitarianism. When people make choices that increase their utility at the expense of another, we have legal systems to settle disputes. The system works quite well compared to the alternatives and despite the “chaotic” variation in individual utility.
What do you find amoral about it?
A failure to accept open borders is not a failure at all, it is a success. There are good, practical reasons for having borders in a world where there is such desperate inequality. Open borders mean the end of order. Open borders are effectively an invitation to loot.
Open borders mean those who have more will soon have nothing at all, because they will be completely displaced. For evidence of that look at any wholly colonised country.
Open borders would lead to an influx so overwhelming that the very infrastructure of the open bordered country would collapse, because so many would come who have no capacity to contribute to the level required to sustain it.
“And in fact I think freedom of speech has been something that the Left traditionally has championed. “
This doesn’t much matter since the left no longer champions free speech, in fact, the left stifles free speech in any case in which someone disagrees.
We have to live in the world as it is today. This is the problem with philosophers, they often want to pretend we can live in the past. Where is the evidence that the left can ever get to champion free speech? While philosophers are nice and all looking back, what the left needs is someone who will actually fight for free speech, someone brave enough to go against the leftist tide of squelching free speech, which is a right that must be continually re-won. Where is that brave progressive or leftie? No sign of them yet.
It all depends who is in the ascendent and who is in power. Whoever is in power will seek to protect their position, whoever is in the ascendant will aim to subvert them to gain power for themselves. Right now the left are in power and the right are the counter-culture. Which seems weird to those of us who have never know anything but the other way around.
You must be about 150 years old, because (at least in a cultural sense) the Left has been ascendant since the 1950s, across the West.
When I grew up the right were most definitely in charge but the left were in the ascendant. All the ‘cool kids’ were lefties fighting the implacably conservative establishment. The left has now entirely won the culture war and become the establishment – it just doesn’t realise it.
“It all depends who is in the ascendent and who is in power”
absolutely not. Regardless of who is in political office, the left needs a free speech champion, someone unafraid to buck the leftist tide of squelching speech.
This is why I miss The Hitch so much
If by ‘the Left’ you mean the currently dominant voices on the left then I have to agree with you. But those of us lefties of the libertarian persuasion are still around, and our day may yet return, who knows? I’m proud to be a socialist, free speech advocate and lockdown sceptic, but I admit it can be lonely at times.
I’m a libertarian myself. Libertarians are not, in my view, leftists due to their distaste for authoritarian government. Progressives and the left are both in favor of authoritarianism.
Socialism, due to its dependence on government control of most facets of people’s lives are also not libertarian. they are diametrically opposed in fact.
Be warned. Singer’s Golden Ass is abridged and has a modern conclusion. There are lots of good translations of the text that has survived. Apuleius included details if the Isis cult in this work. It is of interest in its own right, not as a modern tale of human morality applied to animals.
People like Singer have a lot to answer for, such as the fact that Sweden now has the highest murder rate in Europe, a fact that even the Swedish media is now acknowledging. (They will still blame middle class white men, but at least they are acknowledging the facts).