Hi Spiderman
I'm wondering what you are referring to here? From my recollection Dr Hamilton is relatively mainstream in his views? At least compared to Peter Singer...?
I agree that Hamilton's values don't confront life itself, unlike Singer's (for whom a human baby is a rather low form of life, and Singer is lauded as a 'bioethicist').
But Hamilton has a streak of ascetic brown-bread puritanism, much like the Victorian improvers of the late 1880s, the temperance ladies of the 1920s, 1950s wowsers or the 2000s health nuts.
Such values (a variant of which is praised on this forum such as thrift and saving before spending on doodads) make a lot of sense.
And non-attention to them (by adopting habits like junk food, consumerist debt, gambling, alchohol and drug addiction) clearly causes poverty and misery.
People without much to start with (eg many aborigines) seem to suffer most.
However in our society turning this into a moral crusade, especially where this promotes a 'my habits are better/higher/more cultural than yours' attitude does promote a backlash.
Hamilton's hobby horse is plasma-TV style consumerism. He basically attacks the things that most people aspire to (McMansion, private schooling, private health, a boat, etc).
I reckon he's probably right but as 'non materialists' are a minority of the electorate (but higher in affluent areas) his views have support in 'educated circles' but are not mainstream.
Last edited by a moderator: