I think my main disagreement with Singer is some of the stuff he has said about Israel-Palestine, mostly recent stuff, and some of his comments on capitalism/socialism. Was very disappointing to see the awful "human shields" argument from him. But overall, him along with Chomsky, have probably been the most influential thinkers to how I …
I think my main disagreement with Singer is some of the stuff he has said about Israel-Palestine, mostly recent stuff, and some of his comments on capitalism/socialism. Was very disappointing to see the awful "human shields" argument from him. But overall, him along with Chomsky, have probably been the most influential thinkers to how I think about the world. He's the first philosopher I ever read, way back in HS. Weird to see him retire, but at least he's got a podcast and substack.
On your third disagreement with him, it seems like personal consumption choices here matter a lot - if you eat less meat, on average, less animals are tortured and killed. A lot more should be done to fight animal suffering, but at the very least you shouldn't pay for something to experience extreme suffering and death. And, for most people, I would suspect this is actually the easiest thing they could do. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, it's rather hard to donate. If you do donate your income, you can donate to human charities instead. You could also become an activist, but this requires lots of effort and time. Going vegan might require some initial effort, but overall it's almost trivial. Sometimes I have to quickly glance at ingredients on food labels, but you probably should be doing that anyway. It seems like the absolute bare minimum anyone should do, not some major effort or commitment.
I also think one important aspect and benefit of veganism is the social effects. Most people get their ethics from social norms, not through careful reflection and reasoning. We're never going to achieve the desired goals unless non-vegan behavior becomes socially unacceptable. And vegan social norms are rather hard to encourage if you're not a vegan yourself.
What's awful about the "human shields" argument? It seems like there are complex issues around rewarding hostage-taking. E.g., it seems pretty straightforward that we'd all be better off (ex ante) with a strict policy of never paying ransoms to kidnappers. Why is the "human shields" argument so much worse than the "don't pay ransoms to kidnappers" argument?
Well, for one, I think it's empirically confused. Past investigations of human shields have found the accusation to be mostly meritless. More importantly, it's contrary to the current reality of how targets are selected:
The current massive death toll of civilians has little to do with human shields, and more to do with killing "operatives" while they're in private homes, along with their families and others. They target with AI, and for even low-level operatives, they allow 15-20 civilian deaths. For higher-level operatives, it's at least up to 300.
The typical accusation, and the one Singer used, is that "Hamas locates its military sites in residential areas," rather than typical hostage-taking. But this isn't unusual. Both Israel and the U.S. have military bases near civilians. Gaza is far more dense and it would be much harder for Hamas to avoid. The Kirya base in Israel is surrounded by civilian infrastructure, with military personnel frequenting much of it. Would it be legitimate to blow up a nearby bus or mall that contains some military personnel? If Hamas blew up the base and surrounding area, killing 20x as many civilians as combatants, most people would rightly view it as horrific.
So, I don't think the hostage-taking analogy holds. But even if we accept the premise that Hamas is doing the equivalent of hostage-taking, Israel's actions would still be abhorrent. If some criminals take hostages, say in a hospital or a school, whatever else you think about the correct action, it's clear that you shouldn't just start blasting and killing the hostages and criminals. If a criminal takes a hostage, it's bizarre to claim killing the hostage is worth it if it means taking out the hostage taker. Typically, it's not police policy to just shoot through a civilian to get the bad guy. You also shouldn't drop a bomb on the hospital or school, killing everyone inside. I think most people would be bewildered if the response in Die Hard was to flatten Nakatomi Plaza with missiles. Your life shouldn't be forfeit because you've been taken hostage, nor should it be forfeit because a hostage was taken near to you. Israel isn't just refusing to pay a ransom - they're deciding to just kill everyone: hostage, nearby civilians, and criminals.
singer's recent remarks about the genocide in gaza are truly horrific. he is very dismissive/seems like he can't be bothered to grapple with the enormity of it. appealing to human shields is plain lazy and irresponsible. the unavoidable upshot is that he doesn't appear to take the wellbeing of palestinians very seriously at all
I think my main disagreement with Singer is some of the stuff he has said about Israel-Palestine, mostly recent stuff, and some of his comments on capitalism/socialism. Was very disappointing to see the awful "human shields" argument from him. But overall, him along with Chomsky, have probably been the most influential thinkers to how I think about the world. He's the first philosopher I ever read, way back in HS. Weird to see him retire, but at least he's got a podcast and substack.
On your third disagreement with him, it seems like personal consumption choices here matter a lot - if you eat less meat, on average, less animals are tortured and killed. A lot more should be done to fight animal suffering, but at the very least you shouldn't pay for something to experience extreme suffering and death. And, for most people, I would suspect this is actually the easiest thing they could do. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, it's rather hard to donate. If you do donate your income, you can donate to human charities instead. You could also become an activist, but this requires lots of effort and time. Going vegan might require some initial effort, but overall it's almost trivial. Sometimes I have to quickly glance at ingredients on food labels, but you probably should be doing that anyway. It seems like the absolute bare minimum anyone should do, not some major effort or commitment.
I also think one important aspect and benefit of veganism is the social effects. Most people get their ethics from social norms, not through careful reflection and reasoning. We're never going to achieve the desired goals unless non-vegan behavior becomes socially unacceptable. And vegan social norms are rather hard to encourage if you're not a vegan yourself.
Fair point re: veganism and social effects!
What's awful about the "human shields" argument? It seems like there are complex issues around rewarding hostage-taking. E.g., it seems pretty straightforward that we'd all be better off (ex ante) with a strict policy of never paying ransoms to kidnappers. Why is the "human shields" argument so much worse than the "don't pay ransoms to kidnappers" argument?
Well, for one, I think it's empirically confused. Past investigations of human shields have found the accusation to be mostly meritless. More importantly, it's contrary to the current reality of how targets are selected:
https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-calculated-bombing-gaza/
https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
The current massive death toll of civilians has little to do with human shields, and more to do with killing "operatives" while they're in private homes, along with their families and others. They target with AI, and for even low-level operatives, they allow 15-20 civilian deaths. For higher-level operatives, it's at least up to 300.
The typical accusation, and the one Singer used, is that "Hamas locates its military sites in residential areas," rather than typical hostage-taking. But this isn't unusual. Both Israel and the U.S. have military bases near civilians. Gaza is far more dense and it would be much harder for Hamas to avoid. The Kirya base in Israel is surrounded by civilian infrastructure, with military personnel frequenting much of it. Would it be legitimate to blow up a nearby bus or mall that contains some military personnel? If Hamas blew up the base and surrounding area, killing 20x as many civilians as combatants, most people would rightly view it as horrific.
So, I don't think the hostage-taking analogy holds. But even if we accept the premise that Hamas is doing the equivalent of hostage-taking, Israel's actions would still be abhorrent. If some criminals take hostages, say in a hospital or a school, whatever else you think about the correct action, it's clear that you shouldn't just start blasting and killing the hostages and criminals. If a criminal takes a hostage, it's bizarre to claim killing the hostage is worth it if it means taking out the hostage taker. Typically, it's not police policy to just shoot through a civilian to get the bad guy. You also shouldn't drop a bomb on the hospital or school, killing everyone inside. I think most people would be bewildered if the response in Die Hard was to flatten Nakatomi Plaza with missiles. Your life shouldn't be forfeit because you've been taken hostage, nor should it be forfeit because a hostage was taken near to you. Israel isn't just refusing to pay a ransom - they're deciding to just kill everyone: hostage, nearby civilians, and criminals.
In any case, although I disagree with him using the human shields argument, and much of what he said initially in an article and some tweets, Singer does at least recognize what is happening in Gaza is not justifiable: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/hamas-attack-and-gaza-death-toll-unjustified-by-peter-singer-2024-01
Thanks for the explanation!
singer's recent remarks about the genocide in gaza are truly horrific. he is very dismissive/seems like he can't be bothered to grapple with the enormity of it. appealing to human shields is plain lazy and irresponsible. the unavoidable upshot is that he doesn't appear to take the wellbeing of palestinians very seriously at all