Previous Visitor Comments
|My husband is a spiratuil artist, and sometimes when he is drawing, or painting something, he plays In the shadow of your power’ over and over again. He will play it for hours, and the music gives him a refreshing spirit. Where can I buy your CD for him? I looked on iTunes, but couldn’t find you. Please help!|
|kishor da aaj bhi amar hai. aaj bhi unke gaye geet utne hi taze our yatharth se jude lagte hai . acchhi prastuti...durlabh tasveero ke liye aabhaar|
|Dear Herbert, What are your comments on other ESF & soochls that offer IB sylLabus, esp. how did you finally decided to choose CKY instead of others? To me, good Chinese & discipine is very important, does CKY fit me? budget would also be a concern!thanks, Edel|
|The whole world should adopt the one child rule to spmliy lower the world’s population to less than 2 billion. I say less than 2 billion because we knew cardon dioxide was increasing back in the mid 1950s when we first started measuring it. If there were fewer people then relocating them would be easier. If we could give everyone a quality of life then less reason for war and higher probability for world peace. We just have to realize that the world is finite and so too must our population must be finite and not continue to grow but instead come down to a sustainable level. We must continue to make technological progress to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. But I’ve heard even if we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow that it is already too late. We may very well be past the tipping point already. So spmliy reducing population with a one child rule will help with any solution. It may very well be that the only humane solution will be relocation to higher ground and other countries for all these people. So again if we all go to a one child rule there will be fewer of them to relocate and more room elsewhere for them to relocate to. |
|interesting disection - enjoyed the insight|
|I really enjoyed this article. I think the best point is that many of us ignore the sources of the issues when we try to be charitable to make ourselves feel better. I wish more people realized that it is the cause or root of the problem that has to be fixed, not just the problem like starving Bangladeshis.|
|I liked the article. The only thing I'd change is I'd drop all the ad hominem attacks on Singer. Whether or not he follows his ethic is not important to the validity of his claims only to the practicability. But I really liked the points about how making ourselves feel good about our nobility might be making ourselves miss the point of the problem.|
|I enjoyed reading your article but I can't agree conclusions. Just like the mother with the bridge-jumping child, you are ignoring the context of the choices made. The morality of the concentration camp voyeur depends on whether he can have the camp abolished, why the people were imprisoned, whether he will be imprisoned for interfering etc. Essentially you are saying: do it perfectly or do nothing at all, and this is not the context in which any of us make choices.|
|Ne1 read Singer's views on animal rights? he says that animals (as sentient beings) should count equally as humans and have their preferences satisfied. Therefore he is a vegen, he accuses society of being speciesist. However, not practising what he preaches, Singer is fine to allow people to eat a chicken, he feels they count as less than one! Also, it must be mentioned that Peter Singer thinks that it should be legal for a born, live baby, to be terminated withing 28days of birth, he has some reasoning behind this but it is nowhere near justification for such a statement. Peter Singer is more willing to experiment of a retarded human than an ape. I think the problem is that Peter hasnt fitted in with humanity, so feeling oppressed himself, has resorted to be against society. the poor guy needs help. and some friendship, alternatively he could stop living in his personal 'eutopia' and realise that modern ethics are a lot more complicated than ideals that allow all to get on harmoniously|
|Russ Waters||Anonymous||singer is so full of shit|
|this professor singer is full of shit... how can he ask someone to give all money they make over 30 000 dollars away when he only gives 20 percent of what he makes away. that is hypocracy i have nothing against giving to charities. i think that it is a great thing to help others out, but singer is a fucking moron|
|Okay, I read the essay, and I read the posts, and I think some of the posters are missing the point. The author doesn't seem to be saying that you shouldn't help people out short-term. Here's a relevant quote from above. "It is immoral - not because you give prisoners water to drink, but because you have fashioned a way to make the fact of their thirst an excuse to ignore the cause of their thirst."
He seems to be saying that, look, if you want to give the poor something short-term to alleviate their suffering, then okay. But if you pretend that *that* is the solution to world poverty -- the way SInger does -- you're being disingenuous.
(And dmitri ... you don't think a hackneyed slogan like "Egoism is fine if you're the winner" is a mantra? Really?)|
|More Malthusian mantra. Egoism is fine as long as you are the winner. This sort of logic has us helping by completely giving oursleves to a cause, otherwise we are being disingenous. Your criticism of Singers 'experiment' may very well have some merit. But in the end your logic leads to a disregard for human life, and a new sort of guilt for helping anyone else less than 100 percent.|
|The argument is certainly valid. And I fear that it might be sound.|
|Although I really enjoyed hearing reading about why Peter Singer is hypocritical and generally wrong, I really disagreed on one point. It is highly unlikely that I will ever be able to change the conditions of the Bangladesh government, and even if I could it would take a long time. Meanwhile, there would be a lot of individuals dead. I think that his point is that we can prevent suffering at little expense to ourselves then it is a moral obligation just like it would be if I saw a an old lady fall on the sidewalk. Sure, I could ignore the lady and try to pass legislation to prevent old ladies from walking without walkers (so they don't injure themselves and suffer), but I am still morally obligated to help her out just because I can and because she needs help. But otherwise, great points.|
|Damn fine article. I hate this guy.|
|let's also not forget singer's claim that those disabled among us should be killed off, while he cares for his mother with Alzheimers. Let's face it, Singer is a hypocrite all around, and only says whatever the media will eat up and his fellow academics will praise.
Supposedly, his works are influental, like the one where he dispproved the teachings of Jesus with a video game? He is just another blowhard with tenure.|
|I enjoyed reading this article. I 'm researching the influence of this philosophy after being assigned the task of selecting 3 persons for death as part of a lifeboat game for graduate nursing ethics. I was curious why our class resources listed Singer's web site for information on the topic of nonmaleficence, but not more conventional nursing sites. Apparently, nursing has bought into the "quality of life" instead of the dignity of life as per our history and current code of ethics. I'm fighting a losing battle with graduate nursing educators and the state board of nursing. |
|Visitorfirstname.lastname@example.org||smash and crash|
|Very interesting. What if there was a glass of water on top of the car? I would still save the child.|