Monday
Kala-azar sounds so made up
I have to confess: The Ethicist's answer to the first question he received this week is really good. In a tricky question about the ethics of killing a dog to prevent the spread of disease to other dogs and humans, he lays out something that one could reasonably view as an argument and supports his conclusion, and he contacts Peter Singer to get a partially dissenting view. Besides noting that Cohen's conclusion that it's permissible to kill the dog but important to consider alternative options first is correct, I have three comments.
One is that I've previously suggested (via post title) that Singer would have relevant things to say about one of Cohen's column's. Two is that a quick google reveals that Cohen realized this far before I did, and included a Peter Singer piece in book which was primarily a compilation of Cohen columns. Three is just to note that me being pleased that Cohen contacted Singer should not be construed as me endorsing all (or any particular) positions which Peter Singer has taken, but rather being happy about someone who thinks about ethics professionally being contacted for a column.
As to question two, I reject the premise of the question, in particular the word "instead."
|
One is that I've previously suggested (via post title) that Singer would have relevant things to say about one of Cohen's column's. Two is that a quick google reveals that Cohen realized this far before I did, and included a Peter Singer piece in book which was primarily a compilation of Cohen columns. Three is just to note that me being pleased that Cohen contacted Singer should not be construed as me endorsing all (or any particular) positions which Peter Singer has taken, but rather being happy about someone who thinks about ethics professionally being contacted for a column.
As to question two, I reject the premise of the question, in particular the word "instead."
