Negative replies to Singer's ideas seem to come in only two breeds. On the one hand, there are those who make clear by their comments that have either never made the slightest effort to read Singer's actual arguments at all, or at any rate they have never tried to understand them. In this category we may comfortably place all those who think that Singer advocates the execution of any human beings who do not wish to die, and all those who think that Singer regards the disabled as less than human, or any other such nonsense. I think that one can come up with rational objections to many of Singer's arguments, but members of this camp seem to think that this is unnecessary--having identified a conclusion they think they don't like, the arguments used for that conclusion apparently become irrelevant.

In the other camp, we have those who, rather than try to refute Singer's arguments, prefer to simply denigrate rational argumentation entirely. They claim that objective truth in ethics does not exist, or that human reason is incapable of exploring ethical issues, or that reason must not be allowed to supersede feelings.

What both these groups have in common is an attitude that I find very prevalent among the majority of people I meet, both inside and outside the classroom. It is the attitude that one does not ever settle a dispute by rational discussion. Someone says something you don't like? Simple--shout him down. Compare him to Hitler or some other loathsome individual and demand that he be cast out of society. Certainly there is no need to try to understand what basis the person has for his belief, and most importantly one need never consider the possibility that one's own belief might be wrong. The opponent is to be silenced, not persuaded. Ridicule their conclusions! If they have not defended any conclusions that can be used for ridicule, then just distort their actual ideas until they're more suitable. If this fails, then simply turn against reason itself.

Is it any wonder that society remains so firmly divided racially, socially, religiously, politically, and so on, when our characteristic method of discussion is one in which we make no effort to understand the other person, or to try to reach consensus, or to rationally explore the issues on which we disagree in order to arrive at the truth? Substitute power for reason if you like, but do not think that this comes without a price.

-- Grant Sterling, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Eastern Illinois University (posted 3/6, 3:15 p.m., E.S.T.)

previous response

next response

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name: Your title & institution: Your phone: Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.