Difference between revisions of "Peter Singer"

From H+Pedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 9: Line 9:
 
In the early 1990s, Singer wrote an article outlining some possible objections to [[radical life extension]] from a total utilitarian perspective.<ref>Research into aging: should it be guided by the interests of present individuals, future individuals, or the species? In: Ludwig FC, ed. ''Life span extension: consequences and open questions''. New York: Spencer Publishing  Company, 1991:132–45.</ref> [[Mark Alan Walker]] has responded, providing some utilitarian arguments in favor of life extension,<ref>[http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00048400701654846 Superlongevity and Utilitarianism]</ref> while [[Russell Blackford]] has argued that moral pluralist approach (rather than total utility view) can avoid the problems raised by Singer.<ref>[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19948931 Moral pluralism versus the total view: why Singer is wrong about radical life extension.]</ref><ref>[http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2009/12/on-singer-and-radical-life-extension.html On Singer and radical life extension]</ref> More recently, Singer seems to have been persuaded by [[Aubrey de Grey]] that life extension research should be a medical priority.<ref>[https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-ethics-of-anti-aging-by-peter-singer Should We Live to 1,000?]</ref>
 
In the early 1990s, Singer wrote an article outlining some possible objections to [[radical life extension]] from a total utilitarian perspective.<ref>Research into aging: should it be guided by the interests of present individuals, future individuals, or the species? In: Ludwig FC, ed. ''Life span extension: consequences and open questions''. New York: Spencer Publishing  Company, 1991:132–45.</ref> [[Mark Alan Walker]] has responded, providing some utilitarian arguments in favor of life extension,<ref>[http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00048400701654846 Superlongevity and Utilitarianism]</ref> while [[Russell Blackford]] has argued that moral pluralist approach (rather than total utility view) can avoid the problems raised by Singer.<ref>[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19948931 Moral pluralism versus the total view: why Singer is wrong about radical life extension.]</ref><ref>[http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2009/12/on-singer-and-radical-life-extension.html On Singer and radical life extension]</ref> More recently, Singer seems to have been persuaded by [[Aubrey de Grey]] that life extension research should be a medical priority.<ref>[https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-ethics-of-anti-aging-by-peter-singer Should We Live to 1,000?]</ref>
  
Singer supports the [[abolitionism|abolition of suffering]] through technology and is interested in the prospect of [[moral enhancement]].<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhovbMe7nOo Peter Singer - Suffering & Progress in Ethics (Past & Future)]</ref>. He discussed abolitionism and genetic engineering with [[David Pearce]].<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkyOmY74mKY Utilitarianism, Bliss & Suffering - Peter Singer & David Pearce]</ref>
+
Singer supports the [[abolitionism|abolition of suffering]] through technology and is interested in the prospect of [[moral enhancement]].<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhovbMe7nOo Peter Singer - Suffering & Progress in Ethics (Past & Future)]</ref> He discussed abolitionism and genetic engineering with [[David Pearce]].<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkyOmY74mKY Utilitarianism, Bliss & Suffering - Peter Singer & David Pearce]</ref>
  
 
== References ==
 
== References ==

Revision as of 15:26, 19 July 2017

Peter Singer is an Australian moral philosopher. He is perhaps the most famous contemporary utilitarian ethicist. His 1975 book Animal Liberation is sometimes cited as the beginning of the modern animal advocacy movement. He is also known for his essay Famine, Affluence, and Morality, which argued that there is a strong ethical obligation to donate money to help those who are less well-off, and influenced the development of the effective altruism movement. His more controversial views include arguing that parents should have a right to euthanize their severely disabled infants.

Human enhancement advocate Julian Savulescu is one of Singer's former PhD students.[1]

Futurist views

Singer has discussed Nick Bostrom's argument for the overwhelming importance of reducing existential risk,[2][3][4][5] and is an advisor to the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk,[6] although he has exercised discretion as he believes few are likely to be convinced.[7] He believes that the interests of sentient machines should be taken into consideration,[8] and that we should be doing more to ensure that advanced artificial intelligence will be ethical.[9]

In the early 1990s, Singer wrote an article outlining some possible objections to radical life extension from a total utilitarian perspective.[10] Mark Alan Walker has responded, providing some utilitarian arguments in favor of life extension,[11] while Russell Blackford has argued that moral pluralist approach (rather than total utility view) can avoid the problems raised by Singer.[12][13] More recently, Singer seems to have been persuaded by Aubrey de Grey that life extension research should be a medical priority.[14]

Singer supports the abolition of suffering through technology and is interested in the prospect of moral enhancement.[15] He discussed abolitionism and genetic engineering with David Pearce.[16]

References

External links