Comments on: What the “utilitarians” offer

By: Ken Crawford

Ken Crawford — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:55:45 +0000

Patrick, you’re right that an idea’s warm fuzziness does not prove it right. However, that’s the least of the problems of Singer’s ideals. I do posts like this to make it abundantly clear what he stands for )and that he’s not some side-show freak, but highly respected) and I’ll let the reader decide if it’s abhorrent as I think it is.

A similar challenge to you: just because someone is highly esteemed does not mean they’re right or that their ideas have any merit. History is littered with highly respected idiots.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 06:21:45 +0000

First of all, you’re right in pointing out that Peter Singer is a highly-esteemed ethicist. However, you go from that and then act as if his arguments have no merit. Utilitarianism has its problems, as does every ethical theory, but it also makes a whole lot of sense in a whole lot of cases. Just because your moral theory makes you feel all fuzzy doesn’t mean that it’s correct. An idea’s attractiveness doesn’t affect its truth value.

By: Ken Crawford

Ken Crawford — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:55:11 +0000

Shane: You’re absolutely right that my post spoke WAY too broadly. It was a casualty of getting too worked up over Singer (he tends to do that to me). I completely concede that there are plenty of atheists who do not agree with utilitarian bioethics and I apologize for having made it sound that way.

I’m writing a full post with more complete thoughts on the subject.

By: Shane

Shane — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:18:53 +0000

“If you’re suffering at all, your life isn’t worth living.”

“Please kill yourself. You’ll stop suffering and we’re really sick of paying the bills so please hurry up and pull the trigger.”

“the utilitarian atheist scientist view … we’d be better off going extinct as a species”

Congratulations. You’ve done a great job of ensuring your blog will remain free of crows, what with all these straw men you’ve erected.

It’s one thing to caricature an individual’s opinions, then attack these caricatures. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you’re going much further than this, and you’re saying that *all* people who are non-religious hold these kinds of heartless, utilitarian views. If that’s the point you’re trying to make, then I need only invoke one of the many conversations I’ve had with other atheists to disprove your point. We’re people, too. We care and have compassion for others. We’re not cold, calculating sociopaths.