 |
|
Title: One World: The Ethics of Globalization, Second Edition (The Terry Lectures Series)
ISBN: 0300103050
Author:
Peter Singer
Publicate Date: 2004-03-11
Publish: 2004-03-11
List Price: $14.00
Average Customer Rating: 3.5
Format: Paperback
 |
|
|
|
|
Amazon Lowest New Price: $8.53
Amazon Lowest Used Price: $3.55
Amazon Merchant Price: $11.20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Customer Review: |
|
1: More about the politics of globalization
This book has more of a political focus than an ethics focus. A serious shortcoming is the lack of appreciation for the Eastern perspective. There is no mention in the index of Buddha, Confucius, or Taoism. How can you consider globalization from a parochial perspective? I recommend this book by Canright: Achieve Lasting Happiness: Timeless Secrets to Transform Your Life. "Achieve Lasting Happiness" proposes Confucian philosophy as a basis for universal ethics. Globalization will crush humanity unless there is a system of universal ethics as a counter balance to greed on a world-wide scope.
|
2: This guy gives me the creeps
This book is the perfect example of how deluded left wing-intellectuals have become. With friends like this (and Chomsky, and Moore, and Gore) the left doesn't need any enemies.
I recommend Why Globalization Works (Yale Nota Bene) instead. A solid overview from someone who actually understands how the world works.
|
3: POORLY WRITTEN BOOK
Peter Singer, inspite of his poor usage of commas, tries to make the point that economics could out do and render politics small and mostly insignificant stave for adjustments of the Golden Straight Jacket.
I think that a point on how economics and trade policies also works as a psuedo-war or carrot and stick type of negotiation fodder. Sanctions have long been used as a form of political tactic of agression or revenge but Singer fails to point this out. Rather he tries to portray everyone on the planet as being a bunch of scared sheep who are unable to control anything in this ocean of chaos that he calls Capatalism with no heart.
Also, he explains the genisis of ethics as having congieled from mammal feelings and behaviors. He then goes on to explain how those mammal traits are disctint from our closest non-human relatives. How can he compare mammals to our closest non-human relatives? It is pure nonsense! Monkeys, pigs, dogs, horses and cattle are all mammals and are our closest non-human relatives! This guy is a MORON!
Improving on that statement I will attack his stance on his "new ethic" that has spawned from our new technology and globalization. I shudder at the very idea that one, or a few, nations should impose their new found ethics onto contradictory morals, laws and ethics of smaller and less developed nations. For heavens sakes!
I think that Singer is a poor poor man who is misguided and confused. I feel sympathy for him and for his readers.
One atmosphere? What is he talking about here? Are CFC's for real?
Well I guess there is no argument, scientifically, against Chlorofluorocarbons existing or being real. Peter Singer is talking about everyone shares the Atmosphere. What I disagree with him on is his comparison he used to point the blame of pollution at America. On page 20 he said that one of Britain's nuclear plants leaked waste into the north sea and ruined shellfish and lobsters (and probably regular fish TOO) for Ireland and Norway too. Norway got nuclear waste on its shores and when it took Britain to court for it, the "author" (like he could WRITE) tries to make the point that Kiribati could likewise sure America because its pollution caused global warming which then caused the ice caps to melt which then caused the sea levels to rise which THEN caused the sea to submerge Kiribati's mud homes and farms. Wow, I think that is a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy and makes for one terrible comparison. Britain's nuclear pollution was preventable, an accident (?) and was directly traceable to Britain whereas America is NOT the world's sole producer of pollution and there for is NOT solely responsible like Britain was.
God, I literally cannot read one page in this book without being outraged. I read this book with a pen and I do not need a bookmark for all I need to do is start reading where my comments in the margin stop.
|
4: Worth your time.
I've read the pro's and con's of other reviews and would like to have a brief word with those considering this book as a future purchase.
Looking at the good reviews, one I could easily give becuase I find them very agreeable, one finds the essence of the book, a global utilitarian ethical viewpoint. After browsing the negative reviews I find useful criticism gone too far. There is good substance to their points, but more often they seem to be thinking aloud rather than providing a useful review.
My suggestion: If you have heard about this book or stumbled here by accident, buy this book. While there are always points of contention in the 'nitty-gritty' the essence of his thoughts are worth more than one read, and more than simple consideration. The world is a rapidly changing place and the four chapters presented in his book offer four distinct ways to view the globalization of mankind from an utilitarian ethical perspective. I admit my idealists leanings nevertheless if one doesn't agree with Singer's arguements, then there is no better place to start making counter-arguements. The book is easy to read in common vernacular and Singer gives a good overview of the backround to each chapter focus. You will be a better citizen of whichever state after reading this one.
|
5: Outdated in a Dynamic World
While considered cutting edge at the time of publishing Singer's book "One World" simply doesn't go the distance a book should go in the dynamic world of today. Singer, basically, stops where essential liberal interests do which is a really bad thing for an ethicist to do. He doesn't get into a really nitty-gritty stuff such as seeing the consequences of leisurely, short-term benefits oriented political action as ultimately damaging for the system. By not going the distance Singer is cutting the branch on which he is sitting. Do not read.
|
|
|
|
|
