Oh, the ultimate teleological argument:
But if we shouldn't eat them, why are they so delicious?I should have copyrighted that phrase when I came up with it in college a few years ago... Damn you, Stephen Colbert!
.
Peter Singer and Stephen Colbert
Stephen Colbert gives Australian utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer a run for his money. Singer's got reason; Colbert's got a fast mouth. It's a match made in heaven... or hell, if you ask Colbert.
Oh, the ultimate teleological argument:
.
Oh, the ultimate teleological argument:
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The whole point of the Colbert Show IS to make himself look like a fool. It's satire, my friend :)
ReplyDeleteAnd my guess is that Singer is smart enough to understand that and be okay with it, not to mention he would probably appreciate the sales bump and popularity his books would receive from his appearance on the show.
Peter Singer is quasiphilosopher bacause his argumentation doesn't match epistemological propositions. His postulate is unworth and consclusions are wrong. And ethical consequentionalism is not adequate to be practical guidance, as opposed of deontology.
ReplyDeleteI'm intrigued by what you said, dear anonymous: "Singer is a quasiphilosopher because his argumentation doesn't match epistemological propositions."
ReplyDeleteCare to elaborate on the relationship between ethics and epistemology? I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.
Well, the relation is the method used by Singer, very similar to one of Spinoza. Spinoza's Ethic is axiomatic system. So, Singer have tried to do the same thing. But he failed. Because his basic postulate doesn't mach epistemologic requirements or definition of what postulate should be. Consequantly, everything else is wrong.Since value of all next argumentation dependes on value of postulates. So, there is an epistemologic error going on in his ethical system.
ReplyDeleteActually, his postulate considering 'unnecesarry suffering' doesn't match the required epistemologic condition, beause it hasn't got universally meaninig as it should has. If we ask hundred individuals about meaning of 'unnecesarry suffering' we will get hundred different answers. So, it is pretty unclear concept and it cann't be used as a part of the postulate.
I have learnt that in Anglo-Saxon tradition term 'epistemologic' is used in more specific way than in our, European. We occasionally don't exclude deductive systems from epistemology. Considering Singer we can say 'formally logic' instead. Anyway, he has made a cruciall mistake.
ReplyDelete