ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Talk:Peter Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Peter Singer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
  • Talk:Peter Singer/Archive 1 Up to the start of July 2006 - utilitarianism, humanism, atheism, ethics, euthanasia, infanticide, Darwinism, bestiality, animal rights, torture, suffering.

Peter Singer is a philosopher with controversial views on many contentious subjects - principally euthanasia and animal rights. The Wikipedia article is intended to describe his philosophical views and reasoned criticism of those views, without taking sides. If you have come here to say "I disapprove of Singer", or to object to some aspect of his philosophy, please read the talk archive before contributing, and consider carefully whether this is the right forum to be airing your personal views.

music-for the recording show thing

Contents

[edit] part of the Analytical school of philosophy

Would we class Singer as being part of the Analytical School of philosophy, like his mentor R.M.Hare??

Yes. - Atfyfe 08:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism

I think that Singer is an athiest and there should be a section devoted to his religious beliefs. Randomfrenchie 00:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: I dont think its necessary? He has not written extensively on religion or commented upon it. He merely begins his inquiry from a secular position, which is not unusual in modern philosophyUser:AATB

Unless Singer publishes in philosophy of religion, there is no reason to devote anything but a passing reference to his religion. Atheists are not rare beasts worth special study. As AATB mentions, most work done in ethics is from a secular point of view. - Atfyfe 08:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this does not really need commenting on unless he has made it a primary focus of his work.--Gloriamarie 21:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed section

The section below was part of the article, but was tagged so as to make it invisible. I'm removing it from the article, and placing it here, were it belongs. The user who removed the section also left the following note: "This whole section seems like one person's opinion about what is a detail in Singer's theory, and doesn't seem appropriate here, so I am making it invisible." I'm largely in agreement with the user, though I also think that some of this material is salvageable. Sir Paul 01:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is the only justifiable diet is somewhat moot, especially because the second edition of Practical Ethics endorses Hare's distinction between critical and intuitive levels of moral thinking. A critical thinker might justify solely by reference to Singer's utilitarianism of interests, but at the intuitive level such thought could sanction many habits and social institutions running counter to a straightforward utilitarian reckoning. This is thought that would take into account human weaknesses and a society's circumstances and level of advancement, anticipating unexpected consequences of aiming too single-mindedly at the best consequences; in particular, it might justify non-vegan diets, depending on individual temperament and social circumstance. Singer's Animal Liberation is more about preaching than theorizing, so his commitment to Hare's two-level analysis isn't given much play in that book. But the theoretical implement is in place with the second edition of Practical Ethics, so it would probably be overstatement to hold that veganism for Singer is the only ethically justifiable diet. At least he now has the self-imposed burden of proof to show that Hare-style two-levels thinking would not accommodate non-vegan diets when local conditions or entrenched habits render pursuit of veganism counter-productive. The question about diet becomes even more problematic in the light of scientific evidence confirming the appearance that oysters (etc.) lack the capacity to experience pain. This evidence is untainted by dubious reasoning, drawn from sources as disparate as Descartes and Wittgenstein, that animals without language cannot suffer. (Singer gives such reasoning short shrift.) The scientific evidence draws rather on studies on the neurophysiological basis of pain, a basis which is evidently absent in animals such as oysters. Singer shifts at junctures like this from direct appeals to minimizing suffering to environmental, epistemological, and political arguments, noting for instance the environmental degradation caused by shrimp farming, the advisability of staying on the safe side when we know so little about the physiological bases of pain, and the strategic value of making a clean break with non-vegetarian sources of food.

[edit] Animal sex

I remember reading the article mentioned to do with beastiality. As I remember it, he doesn't justify intercourse but just things like a dog using your leg for certain purposes, and he suggests that lots of people allow this in the secrecy of their own homes. I searched the internet, but couldn't find the article. Anyone remember?

Your recollection is not accurate; the final paragraph reads:
At a conference on great apes a few years ago, I spoke to a woman who had visited Camp Leakey, a rehabilitation center for captured orangutans in Borneo run by Birute Galdikas, sometimes referred to as "the Jane Goodall of orangutans" and the world's foremost authority on these great apes. At Camp Leakey, the orangutans are gradually acclimatised to the jungle, and as they get closer to complete independence, they are able to come and go as they please. While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that "they have a very small penis." As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not. That may be because Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings. [bold emphasis added] [1]
I have therefore removed the "[dubious – discuss]" tag. I also supplied a link to the review. Sir Paul 03:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "moral atheist"

Is this how he describes himself? As a "moral atheist"? Or is he simply an atheist who also endorses morality (which philosophers don't?) This may be carping, but this sounds slightly NPOV. A bit like describing someone as a "moral jew". or a "moral caucasion". There is a several hundred year old tradition in analytic philosophy of ethical theorizing that is completely independent of theology. Of course, if he does describe himself as a "moral atheist", then you should ignore me. Otherwise, reword perhaps? 71.154.210.175 12:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard or read that he describes himself as moral atheist. So I assume it's just a biased statement and removed that sentence --Danogo 17:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
But Peter Singer is a moral person and he is an atheist. For example, he donates some of his salary to Oxfam and Unicef. So isn't he moral? Peter Singer cares about the welfare of humanity and the interest of animals, so I am adding it back in. Peter Singer is a man of morals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.139.21.21 (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
It's not for Wikipedia to assert that someone is moral (or immoral). If "moral atheist" is a type of atheist, then that'd be different. Unless we have a source describing the subject as "moral" we shouldn't include it. -Will Beback · † · 19:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Why does no one create the categories Category:moral person and Category:immoral person? Different people have different definitions of "moral". Therefore, a statement "Person x is a moral person" or "Person x is an immoral person" are not neutral and a violation of WP:NPOV. --Danogo 23:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the description as a moral atheist implies that he is a moral person (vs. a bad, mean, evil, hateful person). It just means that he is a philosopher of ethics (morality) and that the ethics he advocates is not based on a deity - indeed in opposition to religious forms of ethics. I don't know if he himself has described himself as a moral atheist, but I think that that is a rather apt description. David Olivier 00:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the phrase "atheist ethicist" would be less contentious? Rosemary Amey 01:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to: "He specializes in practical ethics, approaching ethical issues from a preference utilitarian and atheistic perspective." I think that captures the idea correctly. It's a bit different from saying he's a moral atheist or an atheist ethicist, in that it doesn't say that P.S. himself is an atheist; what counts most is his works, not what he personnally believes. David Olivier 19:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Contrary to the assertions of numerous religious apologists who believes that one must adopt a belief in God to have a moral foundation, Professor Singer is an example of an atheist who has a strong ethical foundation and acts morally."
I only put that remark down because I do not like it when Christians accuse Professor Singer of being immoral. He acts morally. 134.139.24.65 01:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Whether Singer acts morally or not is a matter of opinion and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Rosemary Amey 05:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't that rest upon a fact/value dichotomy? I think it is true that Singer acts morally, and don't think that is just my opinion. Unless you want to get into emotivism and think that claiming something is moral or immoral is the same as rooting for one team or booing for another. I have seen Singer speak and know he acts morally for a fact. -Teetotaler Non-theist —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.68.22.207 (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

He is a vegan and donates 20% of his salary to charity - that makes him much more moral than most us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.172.195 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-10T20:47:13 (UTC).

So? This is wikipedia. TOTALLY NPOV. For example, you don't see evil as an adjective in the introductory paragraph to Hitler. Current civilized consensus is that he most definately is, but it is an inherently opinionated term, just as moral is an opinionated term.--64.75.187.195 07:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The idea that it is strange and needs to be stated that Peter Singer is moral despite being an atheist is offensive and insulting. Why don't we add to every entry on a gay person that they are a "moral gay" and to entries on black persons that they are "moral blacks". I have never found something so POV and so... This absolutely needs to be removed and some wikipedia editors need to conduct self-examination about their personal biases against atheists. - Atfyfe 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed sentence

I have removed the following sentence from the end of the section titled 'Animal Liberation':

"Acceptable vivisection would be weakly "speciesist" insofar as it passes over human candidates for non-human subjects, but arguably species membership in such cases would be a legitimate tie-breaking consideration."

I think Singer has said that we should generally prefer to use animals over 'marginal' humans for experiments because of the feelings of their families, but this is not speciesist as it has nothing to do with the species to which they belong. As for the claim that species membership would be 'a legitimate tie-breaking consideration' this seems to contradict almost everything Singer has written on the subject in the last thirty years.

[edit] Australian socialist

I've commented out the category, since I couldn't find any proof that he's socialist? --Lhademmor 12:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While I have not gotten a chance to read it yet, he wrote Marx: A Very Short Introduction which seems to be a positive examination of Marx. The book probably states if he is a socialist or not. If someone who has read it could shed some light on this, that would be great.
I read hist book on Marx years ago, and as far as I remember it is not very positive towards Marx. Socialism is not a very well defined term either, and includes many people who are not Marxist. But I don't think Peter Singer defines himself as a socialist at all. As a left-wing thinker, certainly (see A Darwinian Left), but very probably not as socialist. David Olivier 10:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amusing photo

I've always thought that those "link boxes", a large box of links to other pages in a given topic (where the same box appears on all those pages) was not a good idea. But on this page, the result is almost comical :-) If you browse through this page looking for Peter Singer's photo, the only photo you'll find is that of a monkey! Amusing. Nyh 06:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Recent appearance"

The article currently says (in the "Other Views" section) "On his recent appearance on The Colbert Report [...]" - it'd be a good idea to remove the word "recent" and put in the actual date when he appeared on that show. "recent" is a meaningless word in an encyclopaedia entry, since we have no idea when it might actually be read. :) -- Schneelocke 12:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo?

No one has any photograph available of him? It would improve the article a lot.--Gloriamarie 21:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Criticism' section

There is a section of references called 'criticism' at the end. I suggest it would be better to replace this with a section called 'further reading'. This would be better because (i) it would be more neutral, and (ii) it would allow other relevant readings to be included. The most obvious of these further readings would be Dale Jamieson (ed.) Peter Singer and His Critics. As made clear in the article as a whole, there are plenty of writings that have been heavily influenced by Singer, which while not being uncrtical, acknowledge their debt to his thought. Any objections to changes? Abchrvis 19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies of Living Persons

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia. ... The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

From WP:BLP: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States and to our content policies:

  • Neutral point of view (NPOV)
  • Verifiability
  • No original research

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia.[2]

An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

Mdbrownmsw 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

To me, your edits look just like random deletions. Your first deletion is of the phrase:
He is a founding member of the Great Ape Project, which seeks to persuade the United Nations to adopt a Declaration on Great Apes awarding personhood to non-human great apes.
Frankly, that is not contentious.
The guidelines you cite apply to contentions material. Do you really want every single sentence to be sourced??
The next passage you deleted is:
So, for example an animal does not have the right to a good education as this is meaningless to him, just as a male human does not have the right to an abortion.
That is just what he says in the first chapter of Animal Liberation. Either you know nothing of Peter Singer, or there is something I'm missing.
David Olivier 17:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This is not about me, what I know or what I want. This is about following an important policy.
The GAP, their Declaration and the wikipedia articles on them do NOT use the word "personhood" or anything similar. In fact, GRASP, on their homepage at www.personhood.org actually go after Singer for not wanting enough for apes.
I don't have the time or the desire to track down all of the cites needed. You said it isn't contentious. The article materially misstated what GAP seeks and said Singer founded it (making their goal his goal). Here's a start, handling both of those issues as well as demonstrating that it was "contentious"[2]:
"I founded the Great Ape Project together with Paola Cavalieri, an Italian philosopher and animal advocate, in 1993. Our aim was to grant some basic rights to the nonhuman great apes: life, liberty and the prohibition of torture. The project has proven controversial."[3]
If there is a contentious statement that is just what Singer says, cite it. Heck, quote it.
Mdbrownmsw 19:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't know what axe you're trying to grind. It beats me. I'm not going to spend my night on it. Wreak havock on the article, OK, it will be rebuilt in the end just the same. David Olivier 22:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think I do know what axe you're trying to grind. Never mind. The fact is that there seems to be no controversy on the site you mention (personhood.org) against the GAP. They don't seem to believe that the GAP doesn't ask for personhood for the apes. (If I missed it, please quote the relevant page.) The notion of personhood is one that Peter Singer does endorse, see Practical Ethics, in which he suggests that pigs may well qualify. That would seem to imply that there is little doubt concerning the apes (i.e. concerning his attribution of personhood to them). The GAP book explicitely calls for rights being recognized, and for the apes to be included in the "community of equals". So saying that it called for recognizing the personhood of the apes is hardly contentious, whether or not it is not strictly what Peter Singer said.
Perhaps you are correct in saying that the wording could be more strictly in accordance with that of the GAP itself, but that could just be a constructive remark. Going through the text and cutting out large sections just because the wording is not quite perfect is, instead, simply destructive.
David Olivier 22:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
"seems to be no controversy on the site you mention (personhood.org)"
At www.personhood.org, on the homepage, see:
"but certainly not by GRASP. The reality is that the CHIMP Act was one of the worst moments in the history of U.S. animal-advocacy groups. ... Peter Singer also condoned the CHIMP Act. As just about every visitor to this site will already know, Singer is the international president of the Great Ape Project (GAP), which seeks various international bans on using apes. Apparently, GAP is torn. Do they or do they not seriously want rights for apes?"
"personhood is one that Peter Singer does endorse, see Practical Ethics, in which he suggests that pigs may well qualify. That would seem to imply that there is little doubt concerning the apes"
What he said about pigs does not verify the removed article's text attaching that to apes. That, to you, this leaves "little doubt" is moot. It is not verifiable.
"explicitely calls for rights being recognized, and for the apes to be included in the "community of equals". So ... the personhood of the apes is hardly contentious, whether or not it is not strictly what Peter Singer said."
The article's interpretation of his words is dubious and unverifiable. Singer, his book, the organization he co-founded and their resolution do NOT call for "personhood". Rather, they all create a NEW category with a set of rights which the article called "personhood". This is dubious and unverifiable.
"Perhaps ... the wording could be more strictly in accordance ... (but) cutting out large sections just because the wording is not quite perfect is, instead, simply destructive."
Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia.[2] WP:BLP
Mdbrownmsw 18:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you a sentient being or a bot? If the latter, I will give up arguing with you. Well actually, in the former case I probably will too. David Olivier 19:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I am going to assume I am not undestanding what you are saying.
Mdbrownmsw 20:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion, etc.

The abortion/infanticide position seems incomplete; I'm editing it to clarify his positions on these issues. The relevant citations are from Practical Ethics, so I'm going to get my copy so I can get the direct citation info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlcorner (talk • contribs) 17:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP we will need the cite to keep that clarification in place. Mdbrownmsw 19:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The infanticide part seems like it was written by someone who is obviously against Singer, as following the link shows. [4]
I will delete that part, because it isn't said what "disabled" means. Does it mean that one of the baby's feet is misshapen, or a baby cannot live without 24-hour life-support systems. The infanticide part seems to say nothing, and I will delete it. When there is a direct quote from Peter Singer on the subject, clear enough to understand what he means by his words, then I would be in favor of the infanticide part returning. --Riction (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The the part about singer supporting Voluntary, Involuntary, and Non Voluntary euthanasia, is a little complicated, and could use a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.99.111 (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
As discussed in cite #23, Singer does not distinguish between the personhood of a fetus and an infant, and species is irrelevant. Therefore there is no great leap of logic to equate infanticide and abortion based on his own writings.Biccat (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Logically deducing Singer's views would be considered original research, which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Please provide explicit, not implicit, citations for Singer's views. --Padraic 20:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The citation provided in #23 provides sufficient evidence for this. As I explained, there is no great leap of logic required. In the words of Mr. Singer himself: "a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings." Without any mention of his views on infanticide, there's no reason to include the term in the heading. But eliminating the fact that he is at best an apologist for infanticide is clearly a far cry from NPOV. You wrongly reverted an edit without considering the evidence supporting it.Biccat (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Perceived evidence of a viewpoint is not the same as a reliable source stating that it is his position. All you need to do is to state facts and let readers draw conclusions, not draw the conclusions first. We need to not reflect our own like/dislike of a subject in the article nor our feeling about positions we think they take. Bear in mind that the quoted text is just a small part of a long essay on ethics discussing the ethics of many types of killing; itself just an excerpt of a work 15 years in his past.Peripitus (Talk) 09:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
So the author's own statements about a topic are not a reliable source regarding his opinion on the matter? I did not include the quoted material in the article because copyright may not be within Wikipedia's guidelines. See the quoted material above. The article already mentions that, in terms of Euthanasia, "Species membership is morally irrelevant, but personhood is relevant." The article already attributes this position to abortion (based on a 15 year old reference), so I am unclear as to why it is inappropriate to include this same position (in the same work) as it applies to infanticide. The author himself morally equates abortion and infanticide. I don't see what the problem is in including this fact in the article.Biccat (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
If you have an explicit quote from Singer defending infanticide, please post it. Particularly in the area of ethics, it is quite POV (and as I mentioned, original research) to attribute a view to someone based on external deductions of their premises. If you have a quote from a reliable source who interprets Singer as defending infanticide, that may also work. Otherwise, you said yourself this quote is already mentioned in the euthanasia section... --Padraic 13:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. From http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm (cited in the article under fn #23). This is cited under the heading of Euthanasia, but only with respect to his position on abortion. Any comments on infanticide are missing, despite the fact that this is one of his most controversial points.
  • Further, he has been quoted as saying Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) Yet this quote was also removed from the article, under the pretense that the line Singer classifies euthanasia as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is that with the consent of the subject serves to represent his views on the topic. However, classifying euthanasia depending on the consent (or ability to consent) of the subject is substantially different than stating that there is nothing morally wrong with killing an infant.
  • I am not treading on any new ground by attributing this position to him. Other sources of his work have been cited as representing his views Singer holds that the right to life is grounded in a being's personhood. To avoid the trap of trying to define the ethics of the ethicist (original work), I am citing to Singer's own work as concrete evidence of the position he has espoused (if not necessarily taken).
  • I do not want to post the explicit quote in the Wikipedia article for several reasons. First, there is no wiki requirement that the sourced material must be explicitly quoted. The whole wiki project characterizes works without quotation (but sources them). Second, I am unsure as to whether the referenced website conforms to Wiki's copyright rules. I don't want to get involved in a copyright spat, so I tried to paraphrase his work in the article.
  • Finally, (as I discussed above) whatever his position on Infanticide, the article includes the heading "Abortion, euthanasia and infanticide" yet only substantively discusses his position on abortion. The rest is a teaser of his work, more promotional than informative. There is no discussion of his view on euthanasia or infanticide (as expressed in his works), making the heading deceptive at best. But taking away the topics of Euthanasia and Infanticide (as should be done if they are not discussed), ignores relevant portions of the controversy and reputation of Singer.Biccat (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV? - Abortion, Euthanasia, Infanticide

The bolded sentence in the following should perhaps be deleted:

His argument against this is to say that, while a fetus is admittedly a member of the human species, it is not a person, which is defined as a self conscious being that sees itself over time. Species membership is morally irrelevant, but personhood is relevant.[23]

During a debate, Singer is quoted as saying "I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being," and "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person."[24]

Singer classifies euthanasia as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is that with the consent of the subject.

The above quote serves only to sway opinion.

Thoughts? (Snookerfran (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

True, it doesn't add much, apart from phrasing things in an inflammatory way, and seems a bit out of place between the two other sentences. I'm rather for deletion. David Olivier (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removing it. It's been lifted out of context. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I'm not sure that the quotes are lifted out of context, necessarily, but they're awkwardly placed and really don't add anything. Djk3 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I added the quotes. I see no reason to remove them. But remove them if you must. Ostap 16:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed them for now per majority view. - Snookerfran (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I know I'm late, but, if you remove them, there is no reference to infanticide in the very section about Peter Singer's views on "abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide." Since such views are the very reason Singer is best-known in many quarters, it seems to me that those quotes--or something very, very similar--ought to be included. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

I've added some new photos, please feel free to rearrange then as you wish. I didn't use the other head and shoulders photo I took, but if people here think that's a better option please go ahead and use it. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Very nice! I like them, but I think that you should use one or the other of the podium shots, and not both. They're almost the same. How was the talk, anyway? Djk3 (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretty good, he talked about personhood in relation to euthanasia and medical decisions about giving life-saving treatments. It was aimed at the medical students in the audience, so was focussed mainly on practical examples rather than more abstract philosophy. Seems a very nice guy as well and he was happy to pose for a few photos when I said they were for Wikipedia. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -