Adam DallianceApr 23

Peter Singer is a Consequentialist Hedonic Utilitarian Ethicist.

It's his professional job to be good at ethics and teach others about ethics.

He thinks the best ethics are judged by the consequences, and that good is the best for the most people.

He has a podcast. It's probably great. He is cool. I only just heard about it.

But this is his website.

The podcast is offered on Spotify and Apple.

It has an AI chat bot that isn't even prompted well to sound like Peter for no reason at all.

It has a embed for a substack.

That embed for a substack is expired because it's run by a thing called Supascribe that is presumably some software as a service scam.

Below that is a cookie permissions banner which is asking for permission to spy on you for advertisers even though there are no actual adverts on the site.

There are links at the top and bottom to Facebook and Instagram.

There is no RSS feed embedded in the page.

I repeat: Peter Singer is actually pretty cool, and he thinks about ethics sanely.

This is the web we have built. Where a professional Consequentialist Hedonic Utilitarian Ethicist does all this.

#web #ethics #peterSinger

Show threadinpc
@pre so inconclusion, the best ethic is to have none?
Apr 23 at 7:33pmWeb
Show threadAdam DallianceApr 23

@inpc Suspect it more like: there are ethical implications to decisions that you don't really even think about at all and just follow what everyone else is doing without contemplation because you're too busy worrying about ethics.

And even professional ethicists do that too.

If Singer thought about it, I'm sure he'd have a different website. But he likely hasn't thought about it despite being a professional who thinks about these things.

Show threadMoss WizardApr 23
@pre @inpc not to besmirch Singer, but my experience of ethicists and philosophers is they drape themselves in these “isms” (consequentialist etc) as a way to reassure themselves they are the Best Good Boy and shield themselves from criticism. In other words, even though I get your point that an ethicist of all people should have known better, IME they never do because they’re too absorbed in building constructs so they never have to doubt themselves.