What are good arguments against Peter Singer's Ideas?

Against his views on animal liberation?
World poverty?
Abortion? Etc?

...

Please explain.
So he favours good consequences, even if it means infants die, or that certain groups must suffer for the pleasure of society.

Pleasure and pain are not the ultimate principles of a good life. If they were, humanity would have sudokud hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Preference utilitarianism is pretty sweet but hedonistic utilitarianism is a shit.

why don't you tell a murderer where your wife is you dirty deontologist

Because my duty to my wife precludes my duty to not lie to a stranger, you fuck.

I see no problem with randomly disappearing a small number of people for organs if it saves more people than it kills. It would have to be a secret though or people would freak out.
On the other hand, it could be treated as some kind of civic duty, like serving in the military.
Also it would have to be people with no friends or family so grief is minimized.

wew

addendum: I would not kill healthy people to keep those with genetic diseases alive.

gotta keep the gene line pure, bro.

Come on, son, Kant saw that one coming. It's simple.

Peter Singer is trash, sorry. Consequentialism always is shit.

k

Just admit it, fedoras have pretty good points

I knew people would start taking this meme image seriously.
Oh boy.

Sam Harris is one of the least dislikeable fedoras.

You are one of the most dislikeable tripniggers

Sam Harris is easily the dumbest fedora out of the lot

t. hardcore fedora wearing atheist

who virtue ethics ITT?

Macintyre-Squad reporting in!


This hurts my feelings user. Think about what you post and if the person receiving the vitriol truly deserves it.

...

You should become a socialist then you maybe would be less disliked.

The problem is, that wouldn't work. You couldn't keep it a secret forever, and when the truth came out the harm caused to society would be far greater than any benefit from saving a few lives.

Consequentialism is by far the best, but only when it's employed by people smart enough to accurately predict the consequences of their actions. Humans generally aren't that smart, so when the error bars on the predictions are too large it's best to fall back to deontological ethics.

This guy

Freedom without the ability to comprehend it renders the bearer a slave to their impulses.

Not fixable. Not everyone wants to be rich, work hard, be a plutocrat, etc.

It either is a person or not. Go from there.

Then it's a good thing that humans are able to comprehend freedom rather than just succumbing to cheap advertising tricks and base impulses, isn't it? Oh wait…

Yes, those slaves just want to be slaves. They enjoy their chains, you see.