I hope you'll take some time to read the critics of Singer's advocacy for eugenics - literally saying the world would be a better place if parents aborted all disabled fetuses, though he always follows it by saying nice things about actual disabled people. And then consider how Singer's EA contains concealed eugenic principles - of cours…
I hope you'll take some time to read the critics of Singer's advocacy for eugenics - literally saying the world would be a better place if parents aborted all disabled fetuses, though he always follows it by saying nice things about actual disabled people. And then consider how Singer's EA contains concealed eugenic principles - of course a world without disability would be better. While always saying nice things about actual disabled people.
He's learned to cloak his earlier eugenics first in animal rights and now in EA, and it seems like his efforts to wash his reputation has worked. It certainly hasn't been a dealbreaker for most.
Mentioned this in another comment but I don't think just saying "eugenics" gives a fair picture of what Singer was saying, and in any case although I know that position of his gets a lot of attention, that is not why I originally read him or got interested in him and is not what this post is about. Also I think saying "EA is about eugenics" is not true at all. Maybe you don't like Singer but those are two separate topics. One of the points I'm trying to make here is: separate the good ideas from the people that you may or may not like.
I am skeptical that there are good ideas here, beyond the quotidian "do good things! use data!" Sure, if that's it, then that's fine, but that's not what's going on here. I don't think you can simply ignore his root positions on eugenics and then say that his methodology for determining what's best in the future isn't poisoned by that root position.
"One might reasonably argue that these efforts are more likely to be effective without the baggage associated with the charismatic Princeton philosopher building arguments on the backs of people with disabilities. This is likely true. However, while efforts to improve charitable giving might be better off without attacking disabled people, Peter Singer almost certainly wouldn’t enjoy his current status without of his controversial views. There is little fame in arguing to save the lives of disabled people. Anyone can do that.
By removing the attacks on disabled people, Singer’s ideas become milquetoast, almost mainstream liberal platitudes about being nice to animals and using data in decision-making. To put it another way, in so far as effective altruism is compatible with disability rights, it offers nothing new. And in so far as it is new, it is not compatible.
This may well be why Singer so frequently uses disabled people as examples when advocating for animal rights or effective altruism. To say that one should care about impact in charitable giving is banal, barely worthy of a book deal, let alone a career as a celebrity philosopher. Even advocating against arts funding or for limits on animal testing could be dismissed as mere tinkering, not worthy of the attention and admiration upon which Singer has made his career. It is only with the additional element of taking away from people with disabilities that these ideas become revolutionary. To kill is to show that one means it. "
So either EA is so anodyne as to be irrelevant or it requires taking the brave hard positions that end up in eugenics. I don't see a third way, but perhaps I'm too shallow a thinker, just mad at Singer, and not able to see the ideas without the person. Perhaps it's just a coincidence that engagement with these ideas end up calling for euthanasia, for stripping away expensive resources from people like my son, in exchange for more effective forms of managing the future. Perhaps it is true that I can't look at ideas with their origins in a man who thinks the world would be undeniably, indisputably, better, if my son wasn't born. But perhaps it's also true that the people who can afford to be unemotional are those with the least at stake. Perhaps all these things. We'll never know.
I don't actually think you can separate his ideas from him, unless "use data" and "Be nice to animals" are the ideas. Which are not, you know, exciting ideas. It's the eugenics that gets him the big bucks. Silicon Valley loves eugenics.
I hope you'll take some time to read the critics of Singer's advocacy for eugenics - literally saying the world would be a better place if parents aborted all disabled fetuses, though he always follows it by saying nice things about actual disabled people. And then consider how Singer's EA contains concealed eugenic principles - of course a world without disability would be better. While always saying nice things about actual disabled people.
He's learned to cloak his earlier eugenics first in animal rights and now in EA, and it seems like his efforts to wash his reputation has worked. It certainly hasn't been a dealbreaker for most.
Here's the piece I tend to share first, a bit out of date now, but the essential place to start: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/magazine/unspeakable-conversations.html
I've enjoyed your work this year. Thanks for any seconds of time you're willing to give to this.
Mentioned this in another comment but I don't think just saying "eugenics" gives a fair picture of what Singer was saying, and in any case although I know that position of his gets a lot of attention, that is not why I originally read him or got interested in him and is not what this post is about. Also I think saying "EA is about eugenics" is not true at all. Maybe you don't like Singer but those are two separate topics. One of the points I'm trying to make here is: separate the good ideas from the people that you may or may not like.
I am skeptical that there are good ideas here, beyond the quotidian "do good things! use data!" Sure, if that's it, then that's fine, but that's not what's going on here. I don't think you can simply ignore his root positions on eugenics and then say that his methodology for determining what's best in the future isn't poisoned by that root position.
You should read McBryde Johnson (https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/magazine/unspeakable-conversations.html?unlocked_article_code=1.KE0.DPy-.t4ZXgeXG75iY&smid=url-share) before talking about Peter Singer, but for the sake of this blog post, I'd like to suggest this piece instead: http://nosmag.org/effective-altruism-and-disability-rights-are-incompatible-peter-singer/
Here's the nut:
"One might reasonably argue that these efforts are more likely to be effective without the baggage associated with the charismatic Princeton philosopher building arguments on the backs of people with disabilities. This is likely true. However, while efforts to improve charitable giving might be better off without attacking disabled people, Peter Singer almost certainly wouldn’t enjoy his current status without of his controversial views. There is little fame in arguing to save the lives of disabled people. Anyone can do that.
By removing the attacks on disabled people, Singer’s ideas become milquetoast, almost mainstream liberal platitudes about being nice to animals and using data in decision-making. To put it another way, in so far as effective altruism is compatible with disability rights, it offers nothing new. And in so far as it is new, it is not compatible.
This may well be why Singer so frequently uses disabled people as examples when advocating for animal rights or effective altruism. To say that one should care about impact in charitable giving is banal, barely worthy of a book deal, let alone a career as a celebrity philosopher. Even advocating against arts funding or for limits on animal testing could be dismissed as mere tinkering, not worthy of the attention and admiration upon which Singer has made his career. It is only with the additional element of taking away from people with disabilities that these ideas become revolutionary. To kill is to show that one means it. "
So either EA is so anodyne as to be irrelevant or it requires taking the brave hard positions that end up in eugenics. I don't see a third way, but perhaps I'm too shallow a thinker, just mad at Singer, and not able to see the ideas without the person. Perhaps it's just a coincidence that engagement with these ideas end up calling for euthanasia, for stripping away expensive resources from people like my son, in exchange for more effective forms of managing the future. Perhaps it is true that I can't look at ideas with their origins in a man who thinks the world would be undeniably, indisputably, better, if my son wasn't born. But perhaps it's also true that the people who can afford to be unemotional are those with the least at stake. Perhaps all these things. We'll never know.
trouble with Singer is that his good ideas are better than he is
I don't actually think you can separate his ideas from him, unless "use data" and "Be nice to animals" are the ideas. Which are not, you know, exciting ideas. It's the eugenics that gets him the big bucks. Silicon Valley loves eugenics.