Does Richard Dawkins fail as a rationalist? And can you do anything about it?

That was a two-part question from the floor at last night’s New Zealand Post Writers and Readers Week session with ethical philospher Peter Singer.
The answer? Yes and no.

Yes, Dawkins fails – he eats meat. And even though the equally rationalist Peter Singer had directly asked Dawkins to stop – and taken him to Blossom, one of the best vegan restaurants in the world to prove he could eat well as a vegan – Dawkins has not changed his mind. Singer said he regretted that, but couldn’t condemn Dawkins for it.

The packed out Embassy Theatre audience – many of whom had seen Dawkins the previous night – listened attentively and enthusiastically to this heavy discussion. Singer laid out many of his arguments in a clear and calm manner – but that didn’t stop some of them being quite challenging.

But however radical Singers’ ideas, you have to give the man credit for living his ideals – about a quarter of his income is given away and he seemed genuine in his efforts to think of others in all he does. Any situation, approached from an ethical perspective, should give equal consideration to the interests of all those affected and Singer seems to back up thought with deed. He described himself as a “preference utilitarian”. That is he seeks satisfaction of preferences and to minimise denial of preferences

Question time was a bit like listening to a list of search queries through http://ethics.google.com/.

One questioner asked if his friend Tom was right to be giving up non-essential air travel. Others asked why you’d end the life of a cabbage over that of a chicken, and whether it was better to be a depressed human or a happy pig (or something like that).

And that’s the trouble isn’t it? We want simple answers based on a series of keywords. Singer’s session proved we’re a long way from that yet.