Peter Singer Article

OK, a few quick notes. First, a lot of y'all might not know it, but I started out studying philosophy and I never quite stopped. (How can you?) Anyway, I came across an article about the-oh-so-controversial Peter Singer in the NYT, and I thought I'd share it with you. Singer takes utilitarianism quite seriously.

For those of you who've forgotten your philosophy or think utilitarians work on the sewer lines or power grid, here's a primer. In a moral sense, utilitarians are consequentialists; generally speaking, in a given situation, the consequences of an event (not the intentions) are what matters. And utilitarians are interested in a specific type of consequence--human happiness. But a utilitarian's definition of happiness is different than our common notion of it. Here's how J.S. Mill states it in his Utilitarianism:

The creed which accepts as the foundations of morals “utility” or the “greatest happiness principle” holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure [II 2; cf.II 1].

So if an action (whatever its intention) improves world happiness on a global scale, it's a good thing and the moral thing to do. If that action makes the world a less happy place, then that's a bad thing and an immoral thing. Mill and friends are therefore after 'the greater good,' a phrase you no doubt have read before.

Peter Singer applies this framework to contemporary culture and consumer spending. He argues that we're using our personal (and global) resources immorally, in that we're spending it on non-essential items (dinners, movies, clothes, fancy cars) when we should be spending it to reduce world suffering. In short, the money you spent on dinner at a restaurant tonight could have saved a child from dying of dysentery. This is a simple fact. The fact that you didn't do so, he contends, means that you are, in a very real sense, immoral.

Here's one argument he proposes, and it's quoted in full in the article:

“First premise: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad.

Second premise: If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.

Third premise: By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.

Conclusion: Therefore, if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong.”

To reject this argument, Mr. Singer writes, “you need to find a flaw in the reasoning.”

(from The Life You Can Save, Random House, as quoted In the New York Times)

In his other work, (most notably Animal Liberation), Mr. Singer takes this argument even further; in fact, he contends that happiness doesn't just pertain to humans, but to animals as well. Therefore utilitarians, if they are to be consistent, should seek to prevent animal suffering as well. In any case, Mr. Singer always makes for an interesting debate, so I thought I'd post this up to see what y'all had to say about it.

Here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/books/11garn.html?ref=books
Here's Singer's webpage at Princeton: http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html

Two Arguments Against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Preface:

The other day, I mentioned Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Well, I stumbled across an article that mentioned the Pentagon discharged 11 more soldiers because of their sexual orientation. According to the AP, "627 were fired in 2007." (2008 stats haven't been released yet.) If those folks were all grouped together, that's right around a batallion.

Those numbers aren't even the worst of it. I can't help but wonder how many GLBT folks don't sign up for the armed services at all, given that they know the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is in force. I assume there are at least some such folks, and I'd imagine a sizable number still in the service that are in the closet, so to speak (given that at least 12,000 or so GLBT folks joined and were later kicked out because of their sexual preference). So we're preventing more folks from joining the service exactly when we need them (they just sent another MN National Guard unit last month), and we're forcing our GLBT soliders to hide their own identities, which is shameful. These folks are sacrificing just like every other soldier; they should be rewarded, not punished, for this.

OK, now it's time for the arguments:

For those folks who'd say that gays aren't fit for the service, or those that say they'd degrade the quality of our armed forces, I've got one argument (and one snarky comment) for you. First, the snarky comment: Seriously, you actually believe that? OK, you might.

Since you might, consider this: A good deal of the world's militaries are integrated, and they sure as hell aren't falling apart. Two good examples: Israel (which, for better or worse, has the military out there with the most practice) and the U.K's armed forces. Both admit gays to service and the armed forces of both countries are highly effective.

This next bit isn't an argument. Actually, it's more of an appeal to authority. But hey, no one's perfectly logical. Even the higher-ups in the States are coming around to the idea of gays in the service. Consider Army General John Shalikashvili (ret.) and his 2007 op-ed piece in the New York Times. Originally he was in favor of Don't Ask, Don't Tell; now he's against it. Here's a link to the article.

And if that little appeal to authority didn't sell you, let's talk about money. According to an article I found on the DOD's website, "it costs the Army $54,700 to train a basic combat arms soldier, and as much as $67,000 for other military occupational specialties, depending on the length of their advanced individual training." Now multiply that by 12,000 and that's quite a bit cash.

This is a recurring cost. Let's assume that Don't Ask, Don't Tell stays in place, and that 600 is an average number for folks booted from the service. (1,200 were kicked out in 2000 and 2001, by comparison.) That's still about $33,000,000 lost per year. A good chunk of cash, yes?