This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think that somebody who knows how should move the "other uses" section to a disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.25.77.123 ( talk • contribs) 12:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
This is just a start, I welcome any constructive criticism. - Tesseract2 ( talk) 16:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I also think this page needs to be shut down completely. Neither Singer nor Tooley have ever advocated a philosophical theory called 'personism'. They both use a definition of person derived from John Locke but using a specific definition of the word 'person' is not a theory or 'ethical philosophy' and does not warrant a separate page. The three sources for this so called philosophy come from critiques of Singer (obviously that's fine but it should be made clear that this is not something Singer himself would see as his own 'ethical philosophy' if these critiques even use this term). Its also simply incoherent and biased in places for example 'Singer's philosophy has natural conclusions that contradict his own account[6] as well as conflict with common philosophical intuition.' I'm not even sure what this means but it is certainly sounds negative and would need to be stated as a criticism not simply stated as it is. But really this page has nothing of any value in it. Criticism of Singer's use of a definition of 'person' would need to be re-written and be better on his own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.146.118 ( talk) 22:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think that somebody who knows how should move the "other uses" section to a disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.25.77.123 ( talk • contribs) 12:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
This is just a start, I welcome any constructive criticism. - Tesseract2 ( talk) 16:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I also think this page needs to be shut down completely. Neither Singer nor Tooley have ever advocated a philosophical theory called 'personism'. They both use a definition of person derived from John Locke but using a specific definition of the word 'person' is not a theory or 'ethical philosophy' and does not warrant a separate page. The three sources for this so called philosophy come from critiques of Singer (obviously that's fine but it should be made clear that this is not something Singer himself would see as his own 'ethical philosophy' if these critiques even use this term). Its also simply incoherent and biased in places for example 'Singer's philosophy has natural conclusions that contradict his own account[6] as well as conflict with common philosophical intuition.' I'm not even sure what this means but it is certainly sounds negative and would need to be stated as a criticism not simply stated as it is. But really this page has nothing of any value in it. Criticism of Singer's use of a definition of 'person' would need to be re-written and be better on his own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.146.118 ( talk) 22:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)