On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:42, Ryan Delaney <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Peter Jacobi <[email protected]> wrote: >> As the overwhelming majority of points on the list are absurd or pathetic, >> it took me a bit by surprise that I'm sort of agreeing with #51 >> ("Wikipedia's entry on Peter Singer downplayed his advocacy for infanticide >> and moral disdain for human life.") >> >> The coverage in his article and in [[Practical Ethics]] doesn't match the >> controversy it created and doesn't pinpoint *why* it created a such a >> controversy. >> >> Yeah, I'm aware of {{sofixit}}. >> >> [[User:Pjacobi]] >> >> > > This would be problematic to take seriously. Singer's arguments that > seem to suggest that infanticide could be morally justifiable under > some circumstances are made in an environment of academic philosophy > where everyone recognizes that they are theoretical investigations, > and not authoritative pronouncements. > > Conservatives (of the Conservapedia.com breed, anyway) are really > freaked out by this kind of thing because they think academics want to > replace Jesus as our moral authority -- they're used to accepting > answers to these kinds of hard questions from Divine Authority > (communicated to them through their favored religious institutions, > which relieves them of the burden of independent thought). But the > whole point of philosophical investigation is to figure out this kind > of hard problem through ongoing original thought, discussion, and peer > review. That there are few (if any) sacred cows in this endeavour > enables philosophers to pursue whatever they can argue for in a > persuasive (or at least interesting) way, and while some become > committed to outlandish ideas, usually they don't take hold. Singer's > arguments on infanticide are in that category: they are recognized as > interesting, but he hardly won consensus for them. > > This particular breed of conservative thinker, being ignorant of the > advantages of independent philosophizing, waxes histrionic about how > "If the Liberals succeed in replacing Jesus in the classroom, they > will command everyone to kill their babies!" They are using the > counter-intuitive results of one philosopher's intellectual exercise > as an example of the grievous perils of Liberalism (which they have > thoroughly confused with a systematic academic pursuit of independent > thought). That allowing people to think independently will inevitably > allow some folk to come to conclusions we find reprehensible is a > price we pay, and the only way not to pay it is to enforce the kind of > uniformity that they want. Their shock tactics ("A Liberal said > WHAT???") serves that agenda. > > As such, maybe the article on Singer should discuss his arguments > about infanticide. As it happens, I think that is undue weight in the > current article, which is badly under-developed on issues where he has > more influence in the discipline. > > - causa sui >
Actually, I haven't looked at this article in awhile since I quit editing Wikipedia. It looks like the balance is quite good, as far as your philosophy articles go. If anything, the discussion of his arguments on infanticide may be too prominent. But there are no serious problems that I see. - causa sui _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
