What caught my eye was the respectful, even adulatory tone of the piece. For example, the explanation of his statement about killing disabled infants: 'They do not mean what they seem to mean here, shorn of the logical reasoning with which they're surrounded in the book, the qualifiers and the disputes over definitions that make philosophy philosophy.' Now compare that with the summary dismissal of Kant: 'The 18th-century German philosopher derived his ethics from the idea that certain moral truths were self-evident and thus unalterably right...it's Kant's line of thinking that allows you to justify caring for your mother even while you ignore a homeless woman you might pass on your way to meet her.' This is not a level playing field. 'Advantage Singer', not because he plays so well, but because his opponent is boxed in.

Is it unfair to suggest that Singer's cavalier dismissal of another philosopher (well, so to speak) is in a similar vein? On the next page, he comments on 'the prisoner's dilemma': 'This amounts to nothing less than an experimental refutation of Jesus' celebrated teaching about turning the other cheek.' Ouch. This is the first I'd heard about Jesus' statement being testable by experiment. It's a command, not a wager. Its basis is what is right for a person to do, not what the outcome will be. This is ground that Mr. Singer obviously does not share; well and good. But when he assumes that he does share it so that he can refute it experimentally, I think I see a limitation in his reasoning powers which makes me unwilling to consider his own positions as seriously as he wishes me to.

-- Douglas Lewis, Registrar, Prairie Bible College (posted 3/27, 10:13 a.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.