Elfrandor wrote:Yes, I'm familiar with Singer, but my question is if he is right or not. I'm not sure, can't deside eather way, but i'm thinking about it.
I'm not a moral realist, so whether or not nonhuman animals deserve your concern is a question of how much you personally value nonhuman animal well-being. Do you care about nonhuman animals? If not, is there any other goal you can accomplish best by caring about nonhuman animals? If no to both, then Peter Singer is going to be wrong in your view.
Elfrandor wrote:Is there any thead on this forum on politics and economics already?
Discussion of that would belong in the "Applied Ethics" section
Arepo wrote:Re Singer, I don’t fully agree with his metaethics (he seems to be some sort of moral realist), but it’s hard to escape the argument that other animals almost certainly suffer to at least some proportion that we do, and so any utilitarian calculations should include their welfare.
I think it's actually an open question whether Peter Singer is a moral realist. He definitely uses very realist language, but in his book The Expanding Circle
(p201-203) Singer states he agrees with Mackie that moral truth cannot be "built into the very nature of things", but follows Derek Parfit in his argument for moral truth in On What Matters