Meet Peter Singer

"My work is based on the assumption that clarity and consistency in our moral thinking is likely, in the long run, to lead us to hold better views on ethical issues."

Peter Singer is an Australian philosopher who is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. He specializes in applied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secularpreference utilitarian perspective. Check out his website for tons of links to some stuff he’s written.

Outside academic circles, Singer is best known for his book Animal Liberation, widely regarded as the touchstone of the animal liberation movement. Not all members of the animal liberation movement share this view, and Singer himself has said the media overstates his status. His views on that and other issues in bioethics have attracted attention and a degree of controversy. For example, he argues that speciesism (which I’ll cover more in depth later. See this page for a fraction of my thoughts on the issue) is equivalent to racism and sexism and that, under certain circumstances, euthanasia and infanticide are morally permissible. For further exploration into Singer’s views on topics like euthanasia and infanticide, see this link.

I read this essay when I was 18 and it is what finally pushed me over the edge into vegetarianism. If you’re only impression of vegetarians is that they are a bunch of bleeding heart hippies, I recommend giving this essay a fair shot. While there certainly are aesthetic vegetarians, there are ethical thought processes that necessitate taking the interests of non humans seriously. I was also nudged to give to charities because of this essay. Though, since then, I have split my charity money between multiple groups.

Singer’s ethic comes from a school of philosophical thought called consequentialism which argues that that the consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. This is sort of the intuition that most people have about ethics. If your action does nothing but hurt lots of people, you’ve done something wrong.

A commenter on a previous post had this to say about Peter Singer:

Aussie ethicist Peter Singer (an admirable man in many other respects) definitely supports infanticide, and has toyed with supporting genocide, even ‘species-cide’! Yet Dawkins has ‘shared a platform’ with him, and they have discussed animal rights (key to Singer’s views on infanticide). Yet neither you nor other atheist commentators have even raised the matter, which throws considerable doubt on Dawkins’ consistency (how many babies must we kill before it becomes evil?????).

He was raising the question of why Dawkins would sit down with someone like Singer, but not with someone like William Lane Craig. The difference is that Singer thinks his ethics through and anyone who says that he supports the slaughter of babies is seriously misrepresenting his position. This was my reply:

If you’re opinion is that Singer advocates infanticide, then you’re almost certainly grossly misguided on his position. I would recommend actually reading what he says on the topic, not just what his critics say. I’m doing that with Craig. I’ll save you the trouble in this instance. He is not in favor of cutting your babies up because God told you to. He says that if a child is born with very severe debilitating disabilities, that the parents and doctors together should have the option of seriously considering and discussing the possibility of humanely ending that child’s life. He is not going around saying that he is the judge who can decide which child should live and die or that anyone is obligated to kill their disabled baby. If you’re serious about being able to change your mind and you haven’t updated your belief about Singer’s ethic, you’re being disingenuous.

Craig’s position was that brutally and indiscriminately stabbing children and women to death was doing them a favor (since they got salvation from it) and that they deserved it for not running away. If there is anyone who can’t see a difference that is separated by a 20 meter tall wall of white fire, then I think we’ve reached an impasse. If you can link me to any essays that Singer has written arguing for indiscriminate murder of innocent people, let me know.

If you’re interested, check out this video for a nice introductory interview with Singer to get an idea of his thought processes and methods. He also discusses his views on euthanasia and infanticide here if you don’t feel like reading an essay.

About TheStevenator

My name is Steven Zuber. I am a 23 year old college student, studying cognitive science and whatever else catches my fancy at CSU. In my free time, I study subject that either aren't tought well in school, like math, or aren't covered at all in real classes, like interesting physics and psychology, play video games, and whatever else it is that people do. I'm dating an amazing woman who is currently getting her Master's degree at Columbia University.
This entry was posted in Ethics, Philosophy and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Meet Peter Singer

  1. I like that Peter Singer is willing to put forth and defend his contraversial views about the mercy killing of infants with debilitating disabilities. His views are completely logical from a consequentialist and utilitarian point of view.

    • Agreed. Peter Singer is perhaps one of the most consistent ethicists that I’m familiar with. If there is a cogent refutation to his position on euthanasia/infanticide that doesn’t depend on religious suppositions or slippery slope fallacies, I am unaware of it. I’d be very interested in reading one though.

  2. unkleE says:

    Steven, I have accepted your challenge to review Peter Singer’s ethics, especially on infanticide, and you can see my assessment in Peter Singer and infanticide. It may give us something more to discuss! : )

    • I actually requested, not challenged, but same result. :)

      I’ll have to sit at the computer to give time to write a thorough response, and I’ll do so in the comments section of your blog. Cheers!

  3. unkleE says:

    In Craig’s defence, you have not fairly described his position when you say: “Craig’s position was that brutally and indiscriminately stabbing children and women to death was doing them a favor (since they got salvation from it) and that they deserved it for not running away. If there is anyone who can’t see a difference that is separated by a 20 meter tall wall of white fire, then I think we’ve reached an impasse.”

    You omit that he first says that all murder is wrong, that these killings are repugnant to us and contrary to christian ethics. Only after he says that does he try to explain how they nevertheless might have been justified 3 millennia ago. Thus Craig’s ethics would not lead to any babies dying in the 21st century, whereas Singer’s could.

    I don’t agree with this argument here, and I know we have discussed this elsewhere, but I feel I need to make this point for fairness sake.

    • This is not a facetious question, but why would god command something that is against Christian ethics? Like, all over the bible he orders people to do things that Christians say are against their ethics – like murder people – and says he’ll kill them if they don’t. What was up with that?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s