Why Singer is Wrong About Radical Life Extension

Peter Singer has argued that we should not proceed with a hypothetical life-extension drug, based on a scenario in which developing the drug would fail to achieve the greatest sum of happiness over time. However, this is the wrong test.

... Complete entry

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/11  at  04:10 PM

This issue is interesting, but what you posted amounts only to a "teaser" of the real article which requires a subscription on another site. You didn't expand your abstract into enough detail to warrant a blog posting with actual content. It would be nice to know what your "pluralistic account of the nature of morality" is in more detail.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/11  at  05:31 PM

This is, indeed, just a teaser. It's the actual abstract, as printed in JME.

I'll probably blog in more detail about this issue, but bear in mind that the full argument is in the 7000-word article and that anything less will either not do the argument justice or will take almost as much effort as writing another article. So whatever I write will (a) have to be a compromise and (b) not be something I can just dash off.

Under my current circumstances (I've just moved interstate and all my books etc. -- dozens of boxes -- just arrived yesterday), it may take awhile before I can focus on this. Please bear with me.

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: