From a letter by the History faculty and the Anthropology/Sociology/African Studies Program at Rhodes, quoted at Brian Leiter's blog. Leiter's point is that the Philosophy faculty invited Singer, and it's a matter of their academic freedom.
२९ सप्टेंबर, २०२१
"As historians, we the undersigned condemn Prof. Peter Singers’ [sic] abhorrent views that some humans have less value than others."
"We object to inviting him to Rhodes College to speak as part of a 'Pandemics Ethics' panel. Positioning him as an expert on ethics only legitimizes his reprehensible beliefs that deny the very humanity of people with disabilities. Hypothetical philosophies on morality cause real violence. We historians are all too familiar with ideas that justify labeling marginalized, vulnerable, and minority populations as 'life unworthy of life,' and the murderous consequences for those deemed 'unfit' to live. Adhering to the College’s own IDEAS Framework that seeks to foster 'a sense of belonging' and embrace 'the full range of psychological, physical, and social difference,' we historians assert that Prof. Peter Singers’ blatant inhumanity has no place in serious academic exchange here at Rhodes."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३८ टिप्पण्या:
If that is the conclusion, we respectfully disagree, for its premise is that ideas that cause anger and dismay ought not, for that reason, be part of the exchange and that premise, we think, is incompatible with our mission to teach students how to engage in productive dialogue even, and indeed especially, with thinkers with whom they vehemently disagree.
How intelligent of them...but oh so much 20th century academic thinking. Intelligence has no place in 21st century academia...
Intellectual justifications and methods for the suppression of free speech are developed in our universities. From there, such justifications and methods are spread out to the larger society.
One such method is dramatic outrage, which is apparent in this case.
I would encourage Singer to come and speak. Successfully criticizing his views should be like shooting sitting ducks. Isn't that what anyone who opposes him should want?
Of course, radical elements usually try to cut off critical discussion of their ideas. Is that going to happen?
Brian Leiter...
That's a name I have heard since Keith Burgess-Jackson took down his blogs.
Apparently, KBJ liked our hostess calling Leiter a jackass.
Am I entitled to dictate who others shun, or should I simply shun, either quietly or with explanation? That is, should I assent the coalescence of a dominant ideological bubble within which everyone must refrain from *further* expanding the boundary on pain of exile, but pulling tighter the bubble is sometimes permitted, with the bubble being permissive enough initially so that exit has a real social/economic cost for some core members, then maybe ten years later being surprised as it's become restrictive to the point of personal regret and consequence?
Scuse me while I get some popcorn and a beer.
"Adhering to the College’s own IDEAS Framework that seeks to foster 'a sense of belonging' and embrace 'the full range of psychological, physical, and social difference,' we historians assert that Prof. Peter Singers’ blatant inhumanity has no place in serious academic exchange here at Rhodes."
If it's easier to shut people up than to demonstrate the flaws in their views, well...
I agree with the Philosophy department. Singer's views are horrid and I hope, but don't expect, that they'll be attacked as the amoral mess they are.
The proponents of "cancellation" of this type give the appearance that they are unable to refute the ideas they find so reprehensible, so they don't want those ideas to be expressed. It's a commentary on the intellectual capabilities of the cancellators, and in a weird way makes the reprehensible ideas seem more worthy of consideration.
Let's ask these high-fallutin' academicals about abortion. Particularly sex-selective abortions and the aborting of babies with Down's Syndrome. I strongly suspect (because they are academicals) they strongly share the same opinion on that topic as Herr Professor Doktor Singer - that only certain unborn babies are human life worthy of life.
Just asking: Which of the future speakers that the History faculty members of Rhodes College invites may the Philosophy Department have their veto honored at History Department events? Are there any that the History folks will be inviting that are a little bit "problematic," controversial, on the edge, or avant garde at all?
Will they willingly comply with the Philosophy Department's objections?
How many "vetoes" does each department get?
I'm just curious to see how this works out in a "free exchange of ideas."
The great Professor Robert George in 2016 (I was lucky enough to be his student in 1987)
"Professor West and I have a famous colleague, Peter Singer.
Peter Singer not only believes in the legitimacy of abortion through the entire nine months, he believes in infanticide, the killing of infants, the moral permissibility of the killing of infants even after they’re born. Now this to me is an outrageous abomination. In a sense, that is an intolerable, intolerable idea. The idea that any human being, any member of the human family, can be directly targeted for killing, that, to me, is just an intolerable thing.... And yet ... I would be the first one in line to oppose the eviction of Peter Singer. It’s a scandal to some of my conservative pro-life friends to oppose evicting Peter Singer from Princeton. Now, there’s some people who feel about me, some people feel about Cornell, the way I feel about Peter Singer.... Now, and that’s because Professor Singer is prepared to make arguments and give reasons for his position. So if he’s willing to do that, I am willing to listen and I am, in fact, willing to listen with an open mind. We have something to learn about the basis of our belief in the sanctity of life. From confronting the very best reasons that a very intelligent person can adduce against the sanctity of life position."
I'm surprised that Peter Singer is still traveling around for speaking engagements. He been doing this for decades.
Peter Singer is accepted as an expert on bioethics although his ideas are every bit as abhorrent as the Rhodes College statement makes them out to be. He has long been despised and challenged by prolifers but he has held and continues to hold academic positions and to train students in his ideas. For example, he is currently a Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. Since he has trained students, it would be better to challenge his ideas in an academic setting than to more or less run from him. You will only meet him somewhere else in the form of one of his students or a follower of his ideas such as Ralph Northam, the Democratic Governor of Virginia, who is a supporter of quality of life infanticide.
The Rhodes statement is correct when it says: "Hypothetical philosophies on morality cause real violence. We historians are all too familiar with ideas that justify labeling marginalized, vulnerable, and minority populations as 'life unworthy of life,' and the murderous consequences for those deemed 'unfit' to live." This refers to the Nazi eugenic outlook and Singer's outlook is so similar that he is very controversial figure in Germany. However the philosophical underpinnings of his position are based on utilitarianism rather than Darwinian ideas of evolutionary fitness. And, biographical fact, his Jewish parents left Austria just ahead of the Nazis. This makes him rather slippery to deal with when the underlying philosophical difference is not recognized and it's probably why he's lasted so long. He could be challenged on his philosophy - but who will ever do it, if not members of the academy? And how will they do it, if academics develop the habit of athletically running from such tasks to the sound of approving cheers from the sidelines?
Dear History Department:
Fuck Off.
All the Best,
The Philosophy Department.
If it's easier to shut people up than to demonstrate the flaws in their views...
And far beyond the intellectual scope of your typical African studies academic, explaining the cancellation imperative.
Are we sure that Peter Singer and Steven Pinker are two different people? Seeing them both mentioned on the same day makes me think that Singer has wacky adventures after he flips his name around and pops on a wig to become Pinker.
Someone should ask those historians if their views extend to unborn people.
Singer calls the shots as he sees them. Not always with the best explanation.
Darwin, it reminds me, was puzzled by rhetorical competence. He had heard Sydney Smith say at dinner, "I hear that dear old Lady Cork has been overlooked," meaning that evolution had failed to take her, but how he did was unexplained.
A dictionary that decides to put even traditionally offensive words in pays the price with boldface column headings for e.g. blowjob and cocksucker.
peter singer, is a moral monster for a whole host of reasons, if anyone deserves to be cancelled it's him
"Peter Singer not only believes in the legitimacy of abortion through the entire nine months, he believes in infanticide, the killing of infants, the moral permissibility of the killing of infants even after they’re born. Now this to me is an outrageous abomination. In a sense, that is an intolerable, intolerable idea. The idea that any human being, any member of the human family, can be directly targeted for killing, that, to me, is just an intolerable thing.... And yet ... I would be the first one in line to oppose the eviction of Peter Singer"
The insight that should have been articulated was you don't do it because you want to preserve the inclination in society to take care of cute things. Indeed that will settle the abortion question, meaning find a stable majority of votes, for the first point at which a fetus can be shown as cute. Society historically has first seen cuteness at birth, so that's where society took an interest and where murder began. Society then had a relation to the fetus which it hadn't had before, in terms of interest.
I'd extend Singer with a better insight - you learn to be a human. Part of learning is people pretending that you're a full human, saying stuff for you, giving you roles to fill as well as you can and showing satisfaction with the result. Encouragements.
Saying it's okay to kill infants is missing why we don't, while doing away with the incorrect reason for why we don't as well. The right reason is more secure, oddly.
If anybody deserves to be cancelled, it's the abhorrent Peter Singer. But conversely, freedom means nothing if Singer is unable to share his views publicly. If Singer is not free to speak, none of us are.
I haven't thought of Brian Leiter in ages--I have a younger friend, a lawyer, who used to rave about him.
I'm sure I know some of the Rhodes historians, and possibly some of the philosophers, and am not too surprised. I wonder if any of the other invitees for the Zoom call were controversial.
What I recall about Singer besides the brutilitarian regime, is how he had calculated how much a reasonable person needed to spend to survive and was living on that minimum, the rest going to good causes or something. I think at the time decades ago his ideal was $30k per annum; with COLA, who knows?
Jeez even the Philosophy Dept says History both has a point and has the right to state that point. Which is their academic freedom by the way!
I know I know the mere utterance of any complaint about anyone constitutes cancellation.
It’s ironic conservatives are objecting to his ideas yet fighting for his right to express them. That’s why we self-identify as classical Liberals. That and the fact progressives have moved on to the tyrannical speech squelching phase of their 200 year decline.
Singer's position on abortion and infanticide is at least consistent. I mean, why one but not the other? I have a 12-year-old child who was born at 25 weeks. He's completely normal. Why is abortion OK but not infanticide? Aren't we being hypocrites, or at least not thinking things through, if we don't see Singer's point? To me, if his reasoning is consistent, it's a very good reason to oppose abortion as well as infanticide. If one is abhorrent but not the other, how would I explain the difference to the kid born at 25 weeks? Why was it OK to kill him if he had stayed in the womb but not after he was born 15 weeks early when his chances of survival actually declined dramatically and his chances of permanent disability increased? It makes no sense, does it? See how useful radical thinkers can be even when you completely disagree with them? You have to explain why they are wrong. You may have to change your mind but in a different direction. Ultimately, that leads to good.
To the History profs who oppose Singer, how many of you support unrestricted abortion? How many of you oppose the abortion of children with disabilities? I'm guessing none. If that's OK, what the hell is your problem with Singer? Maybe your definition of human life has a few flaws, too? Why should I take you seriously when you won't even debate the issue and explain why Singer is wrong? Is it because you can't, not without calling your support for abortion into question? Better just call him names and make him go away.
I also have a 16-year-old with a mental disability, born full term in case you are wondering. I don't think his life is worth any less than anyone else's. If intelligence is a criterion, don't people with 140 IQ have more of a right to life than people with 100 IQ? It's the same distance on the bell curve as 60 to 100, isn't it? Isn't it really a matter of what percentage of people are smarter than you that determines whether you are disabled? Why not aim higher and declare everyone under 125 IQ disabled? Why not? It's pretty clear from education and income data that people with 100 IQ are much less economically productive than someone with 140 IQ, isn't it? Maybe we better rethink the idea that mental ability determines a person's worth.
I don't mind extreme positions because they tend to reveal inconsistencies in thinking and make people work to justify what they believe. When people have to defend their beliefs they are much less likely to abandon their principles later. I would much rather allow discussion that leads to better understanding than censorship that leads to mindless obedience to authority. In the above paragraphs, I made a better argument against Singer's ideas than the signatories of the letter opposing his talk, and I'm a nobody with no education in philosophy. Which is to say, they didn't even try. I'm sure anyone with a real education could refute what I said with relative ease, but in order to do that they'd have to explain why I'm wrong. And everyone would benefit.
Unrelated, this is why I don't mind nihilists. They are honest atheists and are consistent. I normally don't mind Dawkins/Hitchens atheist types, but they have a weird quasi-faith in human reason that is completely unjustified if we have no purpose and the universe is random. It seems a lot like setting up a new idol to me. I realized when I was young that if I chose not to believe in God that I'd have to be a nihilist, and that clarified things for me wonderfully. I don't feel threatened by the fact that atheists or nihilists exist, because engaging with those ideas helped me realize that I didn't want to go there.
I know I know the mere utterance of any complaint about anyone constitutes cancellation.
No, calling for someone to be denied the ability to speak is attempted cancellation.
To be fair, the excerpt doesn't include an explicit call that the Philosophy Dept. withdraw Singer's invitation, just their wish that they would. I didn't read the source; maybe they do it then, but even if they don't, a reminder to them that they're skirting close to a dangerous drop doesn't seem amiss to me.
I hate Singer's position on abortion and infanticide, which makes me doubtful that is appreciate much of his ethical expertise... but as NotWhoIUsedToBe points out, contrast is a useful foil to developing your own beliefs.
It should be noted that Singer's beliefs are right in line with Plato and Aristotle. Kill newborns, that's fine. Kill the handicapped, that's required. Singer's not a deep thinker, he's simply regurgitating pagan thought from thousands of years ago.
He's oblivious to Christ. Or, more specifically, he would like to replace the Judeo-Christian world with a new "rational" world where people are ranked, and those who are too far down in the rankings are killed.
Why are they killed? To improve the averages?
Where is the stopping point for that?
As you drop farther and farther down in the rankings, you start competing with gorillas, chimps, dogs, and cows. Cows are really, really stupid. But apparently, in Singer's universe, they rank higher than his mother with Alzheimer's. Now I want to ask him about cannibalism. Since some people are beneath cows, can we cook them and eat them?
Presumably some human beings are so far down on the value chain they are down there with the vegetables. Now we are in the realm of food, right? So can we cook and eat these people?
For a logical guy, Singer has trouble explaining why those of us who rank higher can't eat those who rank lower. Plants have no brain activity. Dead cows and dead people also have no brain activity. Are we supposed to refrain from eating animals who used to have brain activity? Why, for fuck's sake? Sentimentality!
The world would be a much better place if Singer would start an ethical farm where you just wait for the cows to die. After a life of drinking beer and getting Japanese massages. You would increase happiness, Singer! All you do right now is piss people off.
I don't think that it would be very difficult at all to come up with a list of criteria that would put prof. Singer into the class of "humans that have less value than others."
I don't believe the guy. He claims that his revelation about life came over a lunch with a vegetarian - and that he, Singer, had to ask the vegetarian why he refused the spag with the meat sauce. Unbelievable that Singer met the only vegan in the western world who didn't evangelize.
Totally flummoxed by the idea that you should never listen to anyone who disagrees with you. You can't even discuss the weather anymore.
We historians are all too familiar with ideas that justify labeling marginalized, vulnerable, and minority populations as 'life unworthy of life,' and the murderous consequences for those deemed 'unfit' to live.
WTF Do all the signers really oppose abortion?
Singer is a walking, talking, Steel Man Argument in Ethics. He is exactly the kind of person a serious philosophy department should invite to speak and debate. If they think they're up to that level of intellectual inquiry and discourse.
Rhodes is a Presbyterian college, or at least that's the original affiliation. It was Southwestern at Memphis when my father and aunt went there, and later some of my friends. They changed the name and brand in the 90s (?)--renamed for a former dean by the name of Rhodes. I wonder if the mental linkage with Rhodes scholars has paid off the way they hoped (but will swear never occurred to them). The faculty and students are MUCH more diverse than they used to be, anyway.
I looked a bit farther, and there's a sound defense of the real Singer to be found. The gist is that his infanticide justification is a very narrow one, not the caricature presented by his most vocal critics here or at large.
It is said that hard cases make bad law, but it seems that hard cases are philosophers' bread and butter; or maybe the easy-hard distinction is drawn differently by different people.
AFAI can tell, one of the main objectors to Singer's participation is a differently-abled individual, brilliant in his field. Not that his objection is more or less legitimate on that basis.
if a /philosopher/ advocates culling human population thereby silencing the culled forever it needs to be pointed out that he is not championing free speech for those who will be culled except may be to scream at the death blow
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा