When times are hard and governments are looking for ways to reduce expenditure, a book like Anarchy, State, and Utopia is about the last thing we need. That will be the reaction of some readers to this book. It is, of course, an unfair reaction, since a work of philosophy that consists of rigorous argument and needle-sharp analysis with absolutely none of the unsupported vague waffle that characterizes too many philosophy books must be welcomed whatever we think of its conclusions. The chances of Gerald Ford reasoning his way through Nozick’s book to the conviction that he ought to cut back the activities of the state in fields like welfare, education, and health are not high. The book will probably do more good in raising the level of philosophical discussion than it will do harm in practical politics.
(Peter Singer, "The Right to Be Rich or Poor," review of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, by Robert Nozick, The New York Review of Books [6 March 1975])
Note from KBJ: This is the opening paragraph of Singer's review, and it typifies his work. First, Singer assumes, without analysis or argument, that "expenditure" is the best way to alleviate suffering. In fact, the best way to alleviate suffering is to promote free enterprise. Shouldn't a philosophy professor at least address this question? Second, why does Singer mention the "harm" Nozick's book might do, if he thinks works of philosophy should be evaluated solely on the strength of their arguments, analyses, and criticisms? Singer's own work has had a deleterious effect on popular morality, inasmuch as he has tried to undermine the Sanctity-of-Life Doctrine. If this doctrine is undermined, all hell will break loose. But you don't see Singer or his supporters talking about that. As a utilitarian, Singer should be very much concerned about the consequences of his actions. Has he thought through the consequences of undermining this doctrine, which is the basis of Western civilization? If he has, why does he believe that undermining it will maximize the good? Singer is heavy on conclusions and light on arguments. And notice the gratuitous smear of Gerald Ford. Singer simply knows that he (Singer) is right and Ford wrong, and he also knows that throwing money at problems is the best way to solve them. (If Singer is implying that Ford was unintelligent, then he is wrong, for Ford graduated in the top 25% at Yale Law School.) If you look up the word "tendentious" in the dictionary, you will see an image of Singer.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 