I am really not much for philosphy or philosophers. I prefer something more *thinks* nailed down: hence I am an historian not a philosopher :P
That said, i think Singer has some interesting things to say. Some worrying ones too, but some of it is genuinely intriguing. I don;t think he is under any obligation to live by his philosphy and I get the distinct impression that he has simply followed his ethical philosphy to their logical conclusion in many instances. That's his task, as a philospher/ethicist: to set the parameters of his theory and then follow them out where they go to. It is no more uncomfortable than many other ethical/philosphical theories, once you track them to their logical conclusions. Such theories are by their nature, artificial: the human factor will bugger up the best and worst of theories once an attempt is made to live by them.
Gah. Philosophers. Historians are way more fun
