In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.9908311039030.5704-100000@uhunix5>, David
Pfeiffer <[log in to unmask]> writes
> However, there is a very basic assumption which makes Singer's entire
> argument (and thus, I suppose, his career) irrelevant.
> ...
> What this all means is that Peter Singer's conclusions are based upon
> a faulty ontology.
First of all, thank you for your compliments.
Secondly I would agree with you that Singer's argument is based upon a
faulty ontology.
However, no matter how faulty Singer's assumptions may be, this does not
make his argument, nor his career irrelevant.
Singer's argument becomes relevant if enough people accept it and if
that argument affects decision making
Further Singer's argument is already relevant in that it causes a large
number of people to take polarised positions, either in favour or
against it.
--
Graham Palmer
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|