This is a fair criticism, my construction of this post was fairly rushed and I did consider this as an issue with it myself. I think what I am trying to get at is that it is all well and good to throw doubt upon Singer’s principle with another thought experiment, but what is required of the philosopher is also to provide grounding or to think about grounding upon which the intuitions pointed to by a thought experiment are consistent - Singer does this, but I do not think that Timmerman does.
I have never heard of this term but I am quite familiar with the idea! I am sympathetic to the position, but feel it too counter-intuitive to suppose that there are no rights or wrongs, or at least that prescribing some rights and wrongs (dos and don’ts) as distinct from things that are merely better or worse is useful.
I have proposed that we survey the population - not the consensus amongst experts - because I have written about metaphysical claims about which there is little consensus amongst experts, or have at least tried to.
I wonder; was this summary generated by AI?
I feel I tend towards self-deprecation which is a bias unconsidered, but that is just because I have depression and am abnormal in this respect to most (this statement is supposed to be funny in its irony - I apologise). I genuinely identfy with a lot of these self-inflating and other-deprecating tendencies, and this was very enlightening as I will now have in mind to identify them and the extent to which they are flawed.
“Caring about equality means treating all death and suffering as a tragedy, not just that caused by specific diseases that we — by cruel twists of fate that thrust them into our field of view — happen to notice.” - very good.
I like the wording of "Be aware of our privilege and the seriousness of these issues". I think that sections encapsulated what this is about and what attracted me to the movement.