Peter Singer: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer '''Peter Singer'''] (in full, '''Peter Albert David Singer''') AC (born 6 July 1946), is an Australian moral philosopher and Emeritus Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. He specialises in applied ethics, approaching the subject from a secular, utilitarian perspective. He most famously wrote the book ''Animal Liberation'' (1975), and in 2005, ''The Sydney Morning Herald'' placed him among Australia's ten most influential public intellectuals.<ref>Visontay, Michael (12 March 2005). [https://web.archive.org/web/20211219181042/https://www.smh.com.au/national/australias-top-100-public-intellectuals-20050312-gdkwox.html "Australia's top 100 public intellectuals".] ''The Sydney Morning Herald''.</ref> | {{Template:Ac}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer '''Peter Singer'''] (in full, '''Peter Albert David Singer''') AC (born 6 July 1946), is an Australian moral philosopher and Emeritus Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. He specialises in applied ethics, approaching the subject from a secular, utilitarian perspective. He most famously wrote the book ''Animal Liberation'' (1975), and in 2005, ''The Sydney Morning Herald'' placed him among Australia's ten most influential public intellectuals.<ref>Visontay, Michael (12 March 2005). [https://web.archive.org/web/20211219181042/https://www.smh.com.au/national/australias-top-100-public-intellectuals-20050312-gdkwox.html "Australia's top 100 public intellectuals".] ''The Sydney Morning Herald''.</ref> | ||
Among [[MAP]]s, [[AAM]]s, pro-paraphile activists and their allies, Peter Singer is known for expressing skeptical views around the alleged harmfulness of some forms of human / non-human sexual contact, especially when contact is initiated by the non-human animal and does no demonstrable physical harm to the animal's body. He famously expressed this stance in a review of the book ''Dearest Pet: On Bestiality'' by Midas Dekkers, in an infamous piece titled "Heavy Petting" (2001).<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20010304173452/https://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/main.asp Peter Singer, Heavy Petting. (''Nerve'', 2001)].</ref> The piece has been used as a catalyst for philosophy academics to debate bestiality, with some strongly criticizing,<ref>Piers Beirne. (2001). [https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013119904480 Peter Singer's "Heavy Petting" and the Politics of Animal Sexual Assault.] ''Critical Criminology'' 10, pp. 43–55. ([https://sci-hub.st/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013119904480 Sci-hub link]).</ref> and some conceding parts of Singer's arguments.<ref>E.g. Neil Levy. (Fall 2003). [https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9833.00193 What (if Anything) Is Wrong with Bestiality?] in ''Journal of Social Philosophy'', Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 444–456. ([https://sci-hub.st/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9833.00193 Sci-hub link]).</ref> Later discussions in scholarship have tended to be more neutral,<ref>See especially: Joanna Bourke, [https://library.lol/main/F94EC6272CC7299A5CDE2005CB3B5346 Loving Animals: On Bestiality, Zoophilia and Post-Human Love] (University of Chicago Press, 2020).</ref><ref>Bassano, G. (2018). [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-018-9549-x Bestialitatis and the New Ethics on “Human” Animals]. ''Int J Semiot Law'' 31, 659–675.</ref> and even supportive.<ref>Bensto, F. (2023). [https://doi.org/10.35995/jci03020005 Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible]. ''Journal of Controversial Ideas'', 3(2), 5.</ref> Singer is also known for co-founding of the [[Journal of Controversial Ideas]]. ''Controversial Ideas'' has published the ''The Pedophile as a Human Being: An Autoethnography for the Recognition of a Marginalized Sexual Orientation''<ref>[https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/2/1/182/htm Vaerwaeter, B. (pseudonym) The Pedophile as a Human Being: An Autoethnography for the Recognition of a Marginalized Sexual Orientation. Journal of Controversial Ideas 2022, 2(1), 3; doi:10.35995/jci02010003.]</ref> - an autoethnography of an individual with largely hebephilic desires - and later ''Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible'' (Bensto, 2023),<ref>Op. cit. above.</ref> the latter of which received massive media attention / exposure with at least 1 million people having seen Singer's twitter post about the article. | Among [[MAP]]s, [[AAM]]s, pro-paraphile activists and their allies, Peter Singer is known for expressing skeptical views around the alleged harmfulness of some forms of human / non-human sexual contact, especially when contact is initiated by the non-human animal and does no demonstrable physical harm to the animal's body. He famously expressed this stance in a review of the book ''Dearest Pet: On Bestiality'' by Midas Dekkers, in an infamous piece titled "Heavy Petting" (2001).<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20010304173452/https://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/main.asp Peter Singer, Heavy Petting. (''Nerve'', 2001)].</ref> The piece has been used as a catalyst for philosophy academics to debate bestiality, with some strongly criticizing,<ref>Piers Beirne. (2001). [https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013119904480 Peter Singer's "Heavy Petting" and the Politics of Animal Sexual Assault.] ''Critical Criminology'' 10, pp. 43–55. ([https://sci-hub.st/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013119904480 Sci-hub link]).</ref> and some conceding parts of Singer's arguments.<ref>E.g. Neil Levy. (Fall 2003). [https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9833.00193 What (if Anything) Is Wrong with Bestiality?] in ''Journal of Social Philosophy'', Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 444–456. ([https://sci-hub.st/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9833.00193 Sci-hub link]).</ref> Later discussions in scholarship have tended to be more neutral,<ref>See especially: Joanna Bourke, [https://library.lol/main/F94EC6272CC7299A5CDE2005CB3B5346 Loving Animals: On Bestiality, Zoophilia and Post-Human Love] (University of Chicago Press, 2020).</ref><ref>Bassano, G. (2018). [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-018-9549-x Bestialitatis and the New Ethics on “Human” Animals]. ''Int J Semiot Law'' 31, 659–675.</ref> and even supportive.<ref>Bensto, F. (2023). [https://doi.org/10.35995/jci03020005 Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible]. ''Journal of Controversial Ideas'', 3(2), 5.</ref> Singer is also known for co-founding of the [[Journal of Controversial Ideas]]. ''Controversial Ideas'' has published the ''The Pedophile as a Human Being: An Autoethnography for the Recognition of a Marginalized Sexual Orientation''<ref>[https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/2/1/182/htm Vaerwaeter, B. (pseudonym) The Pedophile as a Human Being: An Autoethnography for the Recognition of a Marginalized Sexual Orientation. Journal of Controversial Ideas 2022, 2(1), 3; doi:10.35995/jci02010003.]</ref> - an autoethnography of an individual with largely hebephilic desires - and later ''Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible'' (Bensto, 2023),<ref>Op. cit. above.</ref> the latter of which received massive media attention / exposure with at least 1 million people having seen Singer's twitter post about the article. | ||
Revision as of 01:43, 25 March 2024
Peter Singer (in full, Peter Albert David Singer) AC (born 6 July 1946), is an Australian moral philosopher and Emeritus Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. He specialises in applied ethics, approaching the subject from a secular, utilitarian perspective. He most famously wrote the book Animal Liberation (1975), and in 2005, The Sydney Morning Herald placed him among Australia's ten most influential public intellectuals.[1]
Among MAPs, AAMs, pro-paraphile activists and their allies, Peter Singer is known for expressing skeptical views around the alleged harmfulness of some forms of human / non-human sexual contact, especially when contact is initiated by the non-human animal and does no demonstrable physical harm to the animal's body. He famously expressed this stance in a review of the book Dearest Pet: On Bestiality by Midas Dekkers, in an infamous piece titled "Heavy Petting" (2001).[2] The piece has been used as a catalyst for philosophy academics to debate bestiality, with some strongly criticizing,[3] and some conceding parts of Singer's arguments.[4] Later discussions in scholarship have tended to be more neutral,[5][6] and even supportive.[7] Singer is also known for co-founding of the Journal of Controversial Ideas. Controversial Ideas has published the The Pedophile as a Human Being: An Autoethnography for the Recognition of a Marginalized Sexual Orientation[8] - an autoethnography of an individual with largely hebephilic desires - and later Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible (Bensto, 2023),[9] the latter of which received massive media attention / exposure with at least 1 million people having seen Singer's twitter post about the article.
References
- ↑ Visontay, Michael (12 March 2005). "Australia's top 100 public intellectuals". The Sydney Morning Herald.
- ↑ Peter Singer, Heavy Petting. (Nerve, 2001).
- ↑ Piers Beirne. (2001). Peter Singer's "Heavy Petting" and the Politics of Animal Sexual Assault. Critical Criminology 10, pp. 43–55. (Sci-hub link).
- ↑ E.g. Neil Levy. (Fall 2003). What (if Anything) Is Wrong with Bestiality? in Journal of Social Philosophy, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 444–456. (Sci-hub link).
- ↑ See especially: Joanna Bourke, Loving Animals: On Bestiality, Zoophilia and Post-Human Love (University of Chicago Press, 2020).
- ↑ Bassano, G. (2018). Bestialitatis and the New Ethics on “Human” Animals. Int J Semiot Law 31, 659–675.
- ↑ Bensto, F. (2023). Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible. Journal of Controversial Ideas, 3(2), 5.
- ↑ Vaerwaeter, B. (pseudonym) The Pedophile as a Human Being: An Autoethnography for the Recognition of a Marginalized Sexual Orientation. Journal of Controversial Ideas 2022, 2(1), 3; doi:10.35995/jci02010003.
- ↑ Op. cit. above.