Today I attended a Minding Animals conference talk by Peter Singer, among others, on the topic "does philosophy have anything new to say about animals
( Read more... )
I agree with you. When a person speaks up for a point they think is right and does not actually live their life to support it makes them a hypocrite. Why should anyone else listen to them if they don't believe in it enough to live it? On the other hand, is speaking up for animals (even when one doesn't practice it) better than nothing? Not sure.
1. It's the job/role of philosophers and ethicists to examine, question and look at society and dissect and question beliefs and behaviours. I don't think that it is the obligation of a philosopher to also become an activist. For example I think it's okay for someone to question the ethics surrounding stem cell research or privacy laws, but I don't think that it is an obligation that they take sides, nor become politically active on the issue.
2. I personally think that if someone has a particular set of beliefs they should follow those beliefs in an active way. eg if you feel that we should treat animals kindly, we shouldn't eat them.
So if a philosopher personally believes in something they should become an activist, if it is just something they look at from a professional perspective then no.
This. I believe philosophy can be 'evaluative' and does not require that you take sides. I do agree that a philosopher, like any professional, does have something to explain if they are e.g. succesfully arguing that veganism is for the best and then not become a vegan. It's like an extremele liberal politician trying to get unemployment benefit. Of course he doesn't HAVE to live by what he says, but it does make him less credible.
I am a philosopher and after examining the issue decided that eating meat was for the most part wrong. After a while I eventually felt that as a serious philosopher I should be living my beliefs, and removed animal products from my diet.
But there are of course weak people lacking integrity in any line of work. Some professional philosophers just write papers and support whatever logical argument to pay the bills this month. Then there are some philosophers who are living, breathing philosophers.
"It's marvelous that someone said that, because Peter Singer is apparently that kind of philosopher."
Just wondering: which particular part of his philosophy/actions are you referring to here? Is this regarding his apparent acceptance of animal testing?
From what I understand he's a utilitarian, and so will accept certain things if it can be proved that the suffering of a few can benefit the many.
That's the basis for the book Animal Liberation- that the horrible things done to animals don't outweigh the benefits and that animals suffer just as humans do, therefore their suffering needs to be given equal consideration when decisions are being made.
If you really want to get technical the literal job of a philosopher is to put forth arguments either for or against a hypothesis. At this level, it is only the strength of the arguments that matter, and not the character of the person. Referring to the person outside the arguments would be making an "ad hominem" appeal and would be considered a fallacy.
But then of course there is respect for philosophers as good writers and skilled rhetoricians, and there is respect for philosophers as strong individuals, caring human beings, and motivating personalities. Of course any philosopher can be evaluated in both these ways.
Can we consider how a person's beliefs help to inform their logical positions? Of course. Can we also consider how their own actions and lives might shed some light onto how "livable" the philosophies they put forth are? Yes. But both of these things aren't really logic-textbook philosophy and take more of a human approach.
Comments 10
On the other hand, is speaking up for animals (even when one doesn't practice it) better than nothing? Not sure.
Reply
1. It's the job/role of philosophers and ethicists to examine, question and look at society and dissect and question beliefs and behaviours. I don't think that it is the obligation of a philosopher to also become an activist. For example I think it's okay for someone to question the ethics surrounding stem cell research or privacy laws, but I don't think that it is an obligation that they take sides, nor become politically active on the issue.
2. I personally think that if someone has a particular set of beliefs they should follow those beliefs in an active way. eg if you feel that we should treat animals kindly, we shouldn't eat them.
So if a philosopher personally believes in something they should become an activist, if it is just something they look at from a professional perspective then no.
Reply
I believe philosophy can be 'evaluative' and does not require that you take sides. I do agree that a philosopher, like any professional, does have something to explain if they are e.g. succesfully arguing that veganism is for the best and then not become a vegan. It's like an extremele liberal politician trying to get unemployment benefit. Of course he doesn't HAVE to live by what he says, but it does make him less credible.
Reply
But there are of course weak people lacking integrity in any line of work. Some professional philosophers just write papers and support whatever logical argument to pay the bills this month. Then there are some philosophers who are living, breathing philosophers.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Just wondering: which particular part of his philosophy/actions are you referring to here? Is this regarding his apparent acceptance of animal testing?
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
That's the basis for the book Animal Liberation- that the horrible things done to animals don't outweigh the benefits and that animals suffer just as humans do, therefore their suffering needs to be given equal consideration when decisions are being made.
Reply
But then of course there is respect for philosophers as good writers and skilled rhetoricians, and there is respect for philosophers as strong individuals, caring human beings, and motivating personalities. Of course any philosopher can be evaluated in both these ways.
Can we consider how a person's beliefs help to inform their logical positions? Of course. Can we also consider how their own actions and lives might shed some light onto how "livable" the philosophies they put forth are? Yes. But both of these things aren't really logic-textbook philosophy and take more of a human approach.
Reply
Leave a comment