Thinker Who Stirs the Conscience

Peter Singer’s sweeping views (“The Philosopher as Provocateur,” Jan. 8) are objectionable, but what precisely makes him so frustrating? It is not his extremism; books and speeches with extreme and offensive views are commonplace. It is not his influence; for all his celebrity, no concrete widespread changes have resulted from his writings.

Peter Singer disturbs us because he exposes the inconsistencies in our own actions. While we may wail at his casual view of infanticide, we do not do nearly enough for the health and safety of low-income children. We may think we are filled with compassion for the needy or the handicapped, but we do little to use our nation’s wealth to benefit the starving millions in Africa. The vast majority of us is comfortable consuming meat only because we have not observed (and perhaps prefer not to know) the extent of animal suffering involved in animal farms and slaughterhouses. And what of our nation’s use of massive bombing campaigns? Does the effort to avoid a single American casualty justify the deaths of hundreds or thousands of innocent foreign civilians?

Singer disturbs our partially willful ignorance and inconsistency. Instead of venting our moral outrage at bits of his philosophy, we would do better to examine just what our own principles are and whether we live by them.

MICHAEL MAVROVOUNIOTIS

Irvine

*

I found bioethicist Peter Singer’s philosophies ridiculous and laughable. Animals have the same rights as humans? Would he suggest that we lock up predators to protect their prey? Or is it only humans that should be kept from killing animals for food?

He says all life is sacred but then contradicts himself by advocating the right to kill severely disabled humans. He says that there is no moral dividing line between a fetus and a newborn and that fetuses have no right to life. Therefore, is his logical conclusion that newborns have no right to life?

He cares about the feelings of millions of slaughtered animals but not about the feelings of disabled or prenatal humans. I would hardly call him a philosopher. He’s a babbling fool, in my opinion.

LIONEL DE LEON

Garden Grove

*

Whereas our world has been improved by the invaluable minds of Locke, Nietzsche, Russell and others, today we frown upon their intellectual descendants and, in doing so, impoverish our outlook on life and the world in general.

Philosophical arguments tend to come across very broken and choppy when many people explain them, resulting in further misunderstanding. Singer comes across as a person who just speaks to annoy and enrage, which is not very likely a philosopher’s intention.

Unfortunately, some readers will probably associate Singer with his conclusions rather than his arguments for his conclusions.

SERGIO CORONA

Baldwin Park