/lit/ how do you feel about Peter Singer? Do you think that a life of luxury and excess is morally reprehensible? And do we have an obligation to others?
What arguments does he have against egoism?
The idea that morality is egoistic, that in behaving morally we are just actualizing ourselves. "What is moral" is ultimately a different question to different persons, semantic interpretations aside.
OP here, he's an analytical philosopher
One thing to d question is what he defines are "morally insignificant" items?
And to what duty do we owe our time, money, effort to other people? Realistically this is completely time wasting what we're doing here, and his philosophy implicates us all if we so choose not to use this time to do something to prevent pointless death
But you've never done anything remotely close to what Singer is arguing for, hence you don't know and cannot reasonably claim that it will not outweigh the displeasure of giving your, say, money away. Try it first, and only then shitpost.
And assuming you do act according to this maxim, do you have a private fMRI machine that you use to measure the degree of your (dis)pleasures?
That Cultural relativism / individual relativism isnt even morality, it confuses customs/desires with actual moral notions and side steps ethics entirely.
Read Kant on why necessity, universaility and apodictity is essential to our understanding of morality.
Jesus, even fucking Socrates blasted this out of the water.
Read Kohlbergs ideas on the stages of moral growth. Utility and natural right law are both imcomplete compared to 2nd order Golden Rule or the CI
>do you have a private fMRI machine
He said, arguing in favor of a particular brand of utilitarian ethics...?
I have nothing to contribute to this thread other than this: I met a philosophy grad student at princeton, asked her if she'd ever run into Singer. She told me he's pretty much absent from the philosophy department and hangs out with humanities instead. Go figure.