< 1 min read
August 16, 2013
Another reaction to Peter Singer's op-ed: Howard Husock looks at how Singer's "personalizing [of] suffering" puts would-be interlocutors on the defensive.
"The New York Times continues to provide high-profile platforms for prominent critics of contemporary charity. This past Sunday, in the Review section, the turn belonged to Princeton University bioethicist Peter Singer, who, in'Good Charity, Bad Charity,' uses a deft, if ill-founded argument, to demonize much contemporary philanthropy. Giving that is directed to 'arts, culture, and heritage' is a particular focus of his ire." -- Howard Husock, Forbes.com